Conclusion

Abstract

Learning the lessons from Copenhagen, IPPI signals large climate funders’ acknowledgment of the need to adopt a more holistic approach to the international climate debate. Yet, while recognizing the importance and complexity of climate politics, IPPI continued, by and large, to favour a technocratic approach. In other words, it was about leveraging politics—right and left—for the purposes of a pre-determined objective rather than engaging in politics—by overtly taking position in the debate. Climate change was framed as an apolitical, solvable problem. Yet, while presenting itself as non-political, IPPI’s approach masks a distinctly political agenda. Moreover, IPPI’s domineering position in the climate funders’ landscape contributed to align the climate community with the dominant discourse in the negotiations—especially given the relative absence of progressive funders.