LONDON — Ideally, science and politics — like oil and water — should not mix. But in the world’s premier climate science institution, oil is fighting to gain the upper hand.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is embroiled in a series of behind-closed-door controversies, stoked by fossil fuel-producing countries and the withdrawal of the United States as an active participant.
One fight set to boil over in the coming weeks centers on selecting the leading authors for a section of the next major IPCC report, which will recommend policies for governments to cut down fossil fuel emissions.
The IPCC’s findings are the foundation of human understanding of climate change, guiding governments and investors on future decisions. As such, they face intense scientific and political scrutiny.
According to a note circulated within the committee that selects the authors, seen by POLITICO, Sudanese economist Mustafa Babiker — a long-term employee of the Saudi Aramco oil company — was proposed as one of three coordinating lead authors for the chapter.
Babiker is a qualified academic with a long history of contributions to IPCC publications, including leading a chapter of its last major report. No final decision has been made.
But observers and some scientists worry that commissioning an 18-year veteran of the world’s largest oil company to lead such key work could harm the IPCC’s credibility as the world’s arbiter of climate science.
“It damages the reputation of the IPCC,” said one person with inside knowledge of the discussions. “And this may well be deliberate.”
Tzeporah Berman, founder of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty NGO, agreed that Babiker’s potential role created reputational risk for the body. She described the nomination as “one of the most blatant examples of political capture by the oil industry of climate policy that I have ever seen.”
POLITICO tried to contact Babiker through his Saudi Aramco email address and his various university affiliations, but he could not be reached for comment. Aramco did not respond to a request for comment.
“Saudi Arabia holds the work of the IPCC in the highest regard and is committed to upholding the scientific integrity and independence of its processes,” said an official spokesperson for the Saudi delegation to the U.N. climate bodies. “We firmly reject the notion that the nomination of Dr. Mustafa Babiker compromises the IPCC’s credibility. On the contrary, his extensive academic and professional experience … make him exceptionally qualified to serve in this role.”
Potential delays
The imbroglio points to a broader conflict: growing efforts by major fossil fuel-producing countries to intervene in the global climate science body.
That is an expected and manageable response to the increasing bite of climate policies aimed at stamping out fossil fuels and the spiraling impacts of climate change, said IPCC Vice-Chair Diana Urge-Vorsatz.
“What we are witnessing is that simply the whole climate field is much more politicized and financialized, so … the IPCC is ever more important,” she said. “On every side, the stakes are much higher. So there is a much more intensive participation.”
The IPCC produces reports every six to seven years that are used by investors and decision-makers to determine the state of the planet and the need, or otherwise, to act.
It is a U.N. body. While its scientific work is fiercely defended as independent, its activities are subject to approval by the world’s governments.
That political involvement adds weight to the body’s final findings, Urge-Vorsatz argued. While it inevitably introduces competing interests, it is also “the strength of the IPCC,” she said.
The IPCC secretariat did not respond to a request for comment.
The report Babiker may help lead is expected by 2028, in time to inform the next round of global emissions plans set by governments.
But scientists said that timeline is in jeopardy — thanks in part to difficulties reaching agreement in its preparation.
The next chance to thrash out these disagreements comes when the panel meets again in Geneva, starting June 30.
The Trump withdrawal
Most of the turmoil involves the coordinating body of what is known as Working Group III, the group of scientists and officials focused on the global response to climate change. (Other groups are charged with describing the physical effects and impacts of the climate crisis.)
And the divisions are emerging just as a key international player, the U.S., steps back from the IPCC.
In February, the Trump administration intervened at the last minute to block American Working Group Co-Chair Katherine Calvin from attending a meeting in Hangzhou, China. That came after Trump ordered a review of all U.S. participation in global environmental bodies. A comparison of staffing lists showed the White House also appeared to have cut six of nine staffers from the research unit supporting the report’s production, further undermining Calvin’s work.
Calvin was NASA’s chief scientist at the time, but left the role in April, according to a note on the agency’s website.
Despite this, she remains active in her voluntary chairing role and co-signed the note proposing the new authors this week.
In addition to its two chairs, the group has seven vice-chairs. Three are from countries that are part of the OPEC+ group of oil-producing nations. Two others are from countries in the Gas Exporting Countries Forum. One is from Norway, Europe’s largest oil producer, and Calvin is from the largest oil and gas exporting country in the world.
The officers are mostly academics, and there is no evidence they are politically motivated.
But one vice-chair is Malak Al-Nory, a senior adviser in the Saudi energy ministry. According to the person with inside knowledge of the discussions, it was Al-Nory who communicated Saudi Arabia’s nomination of Babiker to lead the report chapter.
“Our ability to assess their skills is imperfect at best,” co-chairs of the selection panel, Calvin and Malaysia’s Joy Jacqueline Pereira, wrote in the first note. But they said all their choices, including Babiker, “received support” from the panel.
“Saudi Arabia, like all other member states, engages constructively to ensure that the outputs of the IPCC reflect rigorous science,” said the Saudi spokesperson.
No critics of Babiker’s appointment, speaking publicly or privately, raised specific issues relating to his professional or scientific integrity. He has a long-term association with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, degrees from the universities of Colorado and Khartoum, and specializes in modeling the economic impact of climate policies.
But his almost two-decade association with Aramco, which is majority-owned by the Saudi government, demonstrated how “oil companies’ infiltration of policy reports and negotiations is holding the world hostage to the systems of the past that benefit polluters at the expense of lives and livelihoods,” Berman said.
Urge-Vorsatz would not comment on Babiker’s potential appointment. But in general, she said, having many voices at the table could be “beneficial,” as long as they were “balanced” and represented a diversity of industries.
Passed over
As the chairs’ note shows, in proposing Babiker, dozens of other highly qualified nominees were passed over. According to the document, they included Jan Minx, a researcher at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research who specializes in analyzing climate policy outcomes.
Some governments don’t want this type of after-the-fact analysis to be included in the IPCC report. Saudi diplomats repeatedly opposed the move at the February meeting, according to the Earth Negotiations Bulletin, which publishes readouts from the meetings. Minx declined to comment.
The chapter Babiker may lead is of key interest to Saudi Arabia, which aims to be a major exporter of fossil fuels for decades to come.
At the February meeting, Saudi Arabia, along with India, China and Russia, fought to alter the title and scope of the chapter. Other nations, including Sweden, pushed back.
“Suggestions made by member states during chapter development are part of the IPCC’s open review process,” said the Saudi climate delegation’s spokesperson. “Saudi Arabia has always contributed through formal mechanisms and in accordance with IPCC guidelines and rules. It is misleading to characterize this as political interference.”
Eventually, though, concessions were made to appease Saudi concerns.
This article has been amended to clarify the role of Malak al-Nory
