Cherry-picking climate science: how is the GST technical dialogue reflected in the final GST outcome?
The Global Stocktake (GST) is a central mechanism of the Paris Agreement that assesses collective progress on climate change every five years. The GST outcome is adopted by Parties in a political phase, which is informed by a technical dialogue, which takes into account equity considerations and the...
| Autores: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2025 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC) |
| Repositorio: | UPCommons. Portal del coneixement obert de la UPC |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:upcommons.upc.edu:2117/446118 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/2117/446118 https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2025.2539135 |
| Access Level: | acceso embargado |
| Palabra clave: | Global stocktake Technical dialogue Paris agreement Mitigation Equity Climate justice Àrees temàtiques de la UPC::Desenvolupament humà i sostenible |
| Sumario: | The Global Stocktake (GST) is a central mechanism of the Paris Agreement that assesses collective progress on climate change every five years. The GST outcome is adopted by Parties in a political phase, which is informed by a technical dialogue, which takes into account equity considerations and the best available science. Through a review of the topics included in the reports of the first GST technical dialogue meetings, the technical dialogue synthesis report, and the GST outcome, this study aims to analyse how the technical dialogue influenced the mitigation component of the GST final policy outcome document, identifying discrepancies and similarities, both in the relative importance given to topics and the contexts in which they were referenced. Many topics were omitted or watered down in the GST outcome, with some retained but lacking relevant aspects of the technical recommendations. For instance, changes in the wording regarding fossil fuels, the lack of references to agrifood systems, and reduced focus on equity demonstrate that in the GST process it is not guaranteed that technical findings are systematically and consistently reflected in policy decisions. Therefore, the authors suggest a number of measures. Findings and recommendations of this research seek to contribute to the debate on how to improve the procedural and logistical elements of the GST for future cycles. |
|---|