Global North withdrawal of IPCC funding risks undermining equitable climate science collaboration amid rising emissions

Indigenous knowledge systems, such as those of the Māori in Aotearoa or the Inuit in the Arctic, offer holistic climate observations that complement IPCC reports but are chronically underfunded and excluded from formal assessment processes. The IPCC’s reliance on Western scientific paradigms marginalizes these perspectives, despite their proven utility in predicting climate shifts and informing adaptation strategies. Funding gaps disproportionately affect Global South scientists, many of whom work within indigenous frameworks, further eroding the IPCC’s credibility and relevance.

The IPCC was established in 1988 under UN auspices to provide policymakers with objective climate science, but its funding model has always reflected colonial power structures, with wealthy nations controlling contributions and agenda-setting. Historical precedents, such as the underfunding of the IPCC’s early reports in the 1990s, foreshadow today’s crisis, revealing a pattern of deferred commitments by high-emitting nations. The 1992 UNFCCC’s principle of 'common but differentiated responsibilities' has been systematically undermined by the withdrawal of funding, particularly from the U.S. and EU, despite their outsized historical emissions.

Cross-culturally, climate science is often framed as a collective responsibility rather than a market-driven commodity, as seen in Andean cosmovisions that view glaciers as sacred entities requiring protection or in Pacific Islander concepts of 'ocean mind' that integrate human and marine ecosystems. The IPCC’s funding crisis highlights a clash between these communal epistemologies and the neoliberal model of science funding, where knowledge is treated as a tradable asset. Indigenous scholars argue that decolonizing climate science requires shifting from donor-recipient relationships to co-created, equitable partnerships.

Scientifically, the IPCC’s funding gap threatens the integrity of its assessment cycles, which rely on peer-reviewed contributions from thousands of experts worldwide. The IPCC’s methodology, while rigorous, is constrained by the availability of resources to conduct comprehensive regional analyses, particularly in the Global South where climate impacts are most severe. Defunding risks exacerbating gaps in data collection, such as the underrepresentation of African and Small Island Developing States in climate models, undermining the IPCC’s claim to global representativeness.

Artistically and spiritually, climate science is often divorced from the emotional and moral dimensions of the crisis, which are central to many cultural traditions. For instance, Aboriginal Australian songlines encode environmental knowledge across generations, while Hindu traditions frame climate action as a form of dharma (duty). The IPCC’s funding crisis reflects a broader failure to integrate these dimensions into policy, reducing climate change to a technical problem rather than a spiritual and ethical imperative.

Future modelling suggests that without addressing the IPCC’s funding crisis, global climate governance will face increasing fragmentation, with wealthy nations prioritizing national assessments over multilateral collaboration. This could lead to a proliferation of competing climate narratives, undermining the IPCC’s role as a neutral arbiter of scientific consensus. Additionally, defunding risks accelerating the privatization of climate science, where corporate actors shape research agendas to align with profit motives rather than public good.

Marginalized voices—particularly scientists from the Global South, indigenous communities, and women researchers—are disproportionately affected by the IPCC’s funding gaps, as their participation relies heavily on external support. The crisis exacerbates existing inequities in climate science, where researchers from low-income countries often lack access to funding, publication opportunities, and institutional networks. Without targeted interventions, the IPCC risks becoming an echo chamber of Western scientific elites, further marginalizing those most impacted by climate change.