Disagreement over the publication schedule of the world’s leading climate assessment has exposed a growing tension between the urgency of climate action and the need for equitable scientific participation.

The world’s leading climate science body is approaching a critical decision over when to publish its next major assessment, raising concerns that governments could enter the next phase of global climate negotiations without a comprehensive review of the latest climate science.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has repeatedly failed to reach agreement on a timeline for its Seventh Assessment Report (AR7), with disagreements among member countries continuing for nearly three years. The dispute comes ahead of the second Global Stocktake under the Paris Agreement, scheduled to conclude in 2028, when countries will assess collective progress towards addressing climate change.

A Reuters report published on October 9 reported that the deadlock could complicate international climate negotiations. The disagreement centres on whether the IPCC should complete its three main working-group assessments in time to inform the 2028 process or allow additional time for drafting, review and approval.

The IPCC’s assessments inform international climate agreements and national decisions on emissions reduction, adaptation and climate finance. A delay could therefore affect not only when scientific findings become available, but also how governments use them to shape their next climate commitments.

A clash between urgency and equitable participation

The disagreement has exposed differences between countries over the pace of climate action and the conditions required to produce credible scientific assessments.

More than 30 countries, including European nations and small-island states, have supported efforts to complete the assessments in time for the 2028 Global Stocktake. They argue that governments need the most recent scientific evidence when evaluating whether existing climate commitments are sufficient.

Other countries, including India, China, Russia and Saudi Arabia, have called for more time. They argue that a compressed timetable could undermine the ability of researchers and governments in developing countries to review the reports and participate meaningfully in the assessment process.

These concerns matter because IPCC assessments involve extensive scientific drafting, expert review and government scrutiny. Researchers from countries with fewer resources may face constraints in funding, research infrastructure and the time available to contribute to a process that relies heavily on scientific expertise.

Electric vehicle charging point in an urban city.Representational image.Image credit:Pexels

However, the disagreement has also prompted concerns that a delay could weaken the connection between climate science and international decision-making. The competing positions raise a fundamental question: how can the IPCC ensure both timely assessments and fair participation without compromising scientific quality?

Carbon Brief reported in April that governments had failed to agree on the timeline across five consecutive IPCC sessions. The IPCC chair, Jim Skea, said the impasse had produced little progress on resolving the issue, although work on the assessments was continuing.

The disagreement does not mean that climate research has stopped. Scientists are continuing to draft the working-group reports, but uncertainty over the final schedule creates difficulties for planning reviews, meetings and the wider assessment process.

Why the 2028 deadline matters

The Global Stocktake is a central mechanism of the Paris Agreement. It evaluates how far countries have progressed towards the agreement’s goals and informs subsequent national climate plans.

The second stocktake is due to conclude in 2028 at COP33. If the IPCC’s working-group reports are not ready in time, negotiators could have to rely on existing assessments alongside other available scientific evidence.

The IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report covers three broad areas: the physical science of climate change; climate impacts, adaptation and vulnerability; and options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Together, these assessments help governments understand the scale of climate risks and the choices available to address them.

The upcoming IPCC-65 meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, scheduled for October 12–16, is therefore an important opportunity for governments to seek agreement on the timetable. The outcome could determine whether the assessment process remains aligned with the 2028 stocktake.

For India and other developing countries, the debate has implications beyond scheduling. Their participation in climate assessments can influence how regional vulnerabilities, development priorities and adaptation needs are represented in the scientific evidence used by policymakers.

The challenge for the IPCC is to reconcile two objectives: delivering scientific findings when governments need them and ensuring that the process includes researchers from across regions and income levels.

As the meeting approaches, the question is no longer simply when the next climate assessment will be published. It is whether the international community can establish a timeline that preserves scientific credibility, broad participation and the usefulness of climate evidence for decisions that will shape the planet’s warming future.

Evidence from Tamil Nadu and a new international survey shows how rising temperatures threaten maternal and newborn health, with outdoor workers and rural women facing particular risks.

Extreme heat is emerging as a growing threat to pregnancy and childbirth, but climate adaptation plans risk overlooking the women and newborns most vulnerable to its effects. New international survey findings, alongside research from Tamil Nadu, point to a widening public-health challenge as rising temperatures threaten maternal health and expose inequalities in access to safe healthcare.

At least 73% of maternal healthcare professionals surveyed across five countries reported an increase in heat-related cases or complications affecting pregnant women over the past five years, according to a survey commissioned by global charitable foundation Wellcome. Meanwhile, 76% reported an increase in heat-related complications affecting foetal or newborn health.

The findings were highlighted by Simon Stiell, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), at an event organised by Wellcome during the Pre-COP ministerial meeting in Fiji on October 5, ahead of the COP31 climate conference in Türkiye in November.

“Rising temperatures mean rising danger in pregnancy,” Stiell said, pointing to links between extreme heat during pregnancy and premature birth, stillbirth, low birth weight and maternal complications.

The survey covered 1,000 maternal healthcare professionals working in Australia, Brazil, India, the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe. It found that 81% were concerned that extreme heat would increasingly threaten maternal, foetal and newborn health without further action. Nearly all respondents had cared for a pregnant woman or baby whose health they believed had been affected by extreme heat, while 92% wanted more training and resources to protect pregnant women.

The findings highlight a critical gap in climate preparedness: although heat-health warnings are becoming increasingly important, pregnancy and newborn care are not always adequately incorporated into plans for responding to extreme temperatures.

Evidence from India highlights unequal risks

Research from Tamil Nadu adds to the growing evidence that occupational heat exposure can have serious consequences for pregnancy.

A prospective cohort study published in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology examined 800 pregnant women engaged in moderate to heavy physical work in Tamil Nadu. Researchers found that 47.3% experienced high occupational heat exposure. Among heat-exposed women, 29.6% experienced moderate dehydration, while 17.4% recorded an increase in core body temperature.

The study found that women exposed to high occupational heat had 2.4 times the adjusted odds of miscarriage and 2.3 times the adjusted odds of an adverse pregnancy outcome. The latter included outcomes such as miscarriage, preterm birth, low birth weight and stillbirth.

Children are attending school in temporary learning centres following the devastating floods in Nuwakot, Nepal, where climate change and glacial ice melt have played a significant factor.Image credit: UNICEF/Laxmi Prasad Ngakhusi

The researchers also found that high occupational heat exposure was associated with twice the adjusted odds of an adverse outcome at birth. Although the study establishes an association rather than proving that heat alone caused each outcome, it provides evidence of the risks faced by pregnant women working in hot conditions.

A separate observational cohort study involving 680 pregnant women across six Tamil Nadu districts examined differences between rural and urban populations. Researchers found that 55% of rural participants experienced heat exposure above the study’s permissible limit, compared with 45% of urban participants.

Rural women were also more likely to report heat-strain symptoms, including excessive thirst, fatigue, headaches and dizziness. After accounting for potential confounding factors, heat-exposed rural women had nearly twice the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes and three times the risk of adverse birth outcomes compared with the study’s urban comparison group.

The study also found a fourfold higher risk of miscarriage among heat-exposed rural women during the first trimester compared with urban women. The researchers identified socioeconomic disadvantage, limited awareness of heat risks and reduced access to welfare facilities as factors that could contribute to rural women’s greater vulnerability.

Evidence from a separate study of 126,273 pregnancies recorded in India and Pakistan reinforces the concern. Researchers found that higher average maximum temperatures during the second trimester were associated with an increased risk of preterm birth. The relative risk was 1.05 for the study’s five-degree temperature contrast, indicating a 5% relative increase in risk—not a five-percentage-point increase in the absolute risk of premature birth.

Together, these studies suggest that heat exposure is not simply an environmental inconvenience during pregnancy. It can coincide with dehydration, physically demanding work and barriers to healthcare, creating risks that are unevenly distributed across communities.

From warnings to protection

Stiell warned that the effects of extreme heat are not shared equally. Pregnant women who work outdoors, live in poorly ventilated housing, travel long distances to clinics or depend on healthcare facilities without reliable electricity, water or cooling cannot be protected through public advice alone.

“Staying cool” is not a realistic option for families without access to cool spaces, he argued. Without targeted intervention, extreme heat could deepen existing inequalities in maternal healthcare, making a safe pregnancy increasingly dependent on income, geography and access to medical services.

Stiell outlined three priorities for governments: integrating pregnancy and newborn care into climate adaptation and heat-health planning; translating evidence into practical protection through healthcare-worker training, heat alerts and safer facilities; and improving data to identify where risks are growing and which interventions are effective.

For India, the findings have implications for heat-action plans, occupational safety and maternal healthcare. Measures could include heat-risk guidance during antenatal visits, better protection for pregnant outdoor workers, improved ventilation and cooling in maternity facilities, and reliable access to water and electricity during extreme heat.

The UN climate chief also called for adaptation-finance commitments agreed at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, to be delivered and for countries to work towards mobilising $1.3 trillion annually for developing countries.

Health is expected to remain a key priority in preparations for COP31, scheduled for November 9–20, 2026, in Türkiye’s Antalya province, under the Turkish presidency and with Australia leading negotiations.

The emerging evidence makes the policy challenge clear: protecting pregnant women and newborns must become part of climate resilience, rather than an afterthought. As temperatures rise, governments will need to assess climate action not only by emissions targets and financial commitments, but also by whether healthcare systems can protect people during pregnancy and give newborns a safe start to life.

Researchers monitored 27 commercial gas kitchens in California, Pennsylvania and New York. The three all-electric kitchens stayed inside every limit. Gas pilot lights left burning overnight pushed some readings above what the same kitchens recorded during service.

Researchers attached a temperature monitor to a chef’s shoulder during a cooking session of roughly five hours. The average reading was 92°F (33°C). At its peak it touched 106°F (41°C).

One chef on one shift is a small sample, and the scientists treated it that way. But it sits inside a larger study, published on 6 October, that comes to an uncomfortable conclusion for the restaurant trade. In about seven out of ten commercial kitchens that cook with gas or propane, workers were exposed to air pollution, heat, or both at levels above health-based guidelines. The kitchens that cooked only with electricity did not cross a single line.

Gas Kitchens Can Reach Extreme Heat During Service

The paper, “Combustion-Derived Air Pollution and Heat from Gas-fired Appliances in Commercial Kitchens Can Exceed Health-Based Guidelines”, comes from researchers at PSE Healthy Energy, the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability and New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, working with chef Christopher Galarza. It was published in Environmental Research Letters. The team says it is the first US study to compare gas, propane and all-electric commercial kitchens under real working conditions.

What was measured

The team monitored 27 kitchens in California, Pennsylvania and New York. Twenty-one cooked with natural gas, three with propane and three were all-electric. Instruments recorded nitrogen dioxide, benzene, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane and air temperature at locations where staff actually work. Readings were taken during service and again overnight, when the kitchens were closed.

The kitchens volunteered. PSE recruited restaurants, cafés, hotels and similar sites through a public sign-up, with a preference for full-service kitchens that had commercial ventilation hoods. Galarza recruited most of the participating kitchens himself.

The air

Nitrogen dioxide is a by-product of burning fuel. It inflames the airways and raises the risk of asthma. During cooking hours, the hourly average measured outside the hood systems was above the US Environmental Protection Agency’s one-hour standard of 100 parts per billion in 17 of the 24 gas and propane kitchens.

That benchmark was written for outdoor air, not for workplaces, and the researchers use it as a health-based yardstick. The occupational comparison is starker. In one kitchen, a 15-minute average went above 1,000 parts per billion, the short-term workplace limit recommended by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Other pollutants also crossed lines. Carbon monoxide went over California’s one-hour guideline of 20 parts per million in three gas kitchens. Benzene, a known human carcinogen, went over California’s one-hour guideline of 8.4 parts per billion in five.

The findings bear on a common assumption, that a good hood solves the problem. The hoods helped, according to the study, which says they reduced pollutant exposure but did not remove it. At worker-relevant locations in roughly two-thirds to seven-tenths of the gas-fired kitchens, concentrations still went over health benchmarks.

The heat

Temperature was recorded in 19 of the gas kitchens. In 13 of them, or about 68 per cent, readings went above 90°F (32°C). That is the high-heat trigger in the heat rule OSHA, the US workplace safety regulator, proposed in 2024, and the level at which California’s indoor heat illness regulations apply. Ten kitchens recorded a maximum above 100°F (37°C), and four went past 122°F (50°C).

Weather was not the explanation. On days when the outdoor temperature stayed under 75°F (23°C), 10 of 13 gas kitchens still went over 90°F indoors. The researchers conclude that the heat comes mainly from the cooking equipment.

Yannai Kashtan, the lead author and an air quality scientist at PSE, told Stateline that nothing here will surprise anyone who has worked a line, since cooks already know these are “intense environments full of heat and pollution.” What the study adds is measurement. He pointed to the physics: a gas flame transfers only part of its heat to the pan, and the rest goes into the room.

Only two all-electric kitchens had temperature data. Both recorded some of the lowest in-service temperatures in the whole study, two of the three lowest. Two is too few to build an estimate on, and the authors do not claim otherwise.

Pilot lights overnight

The overnight finding may be the most unexpected. In about seven in ten of the gas kitchens monitored after closing, levels of nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane and benzene were higher overnight than during service. Ventilation was switched off, and the pilot lights stayed lit. Seven kitchens went above the 100 parts per billion nitrogen dioxide mark during off-work hours.

Drew Michanowicz, a principal scientist at PSE and a co-author, said some of the highest indoor levels the team recorded came “when no one was cooking at all.” That matters for cleaning crews and for staff who arrive early to open up. He added that the same kind of commercial appliances are used in schools, hospitals and mixed-use buildings, so the exposure probably extends well beyond restaurants. The study did not measure those buildings.

None of the all-electric kitchens exceeded a pollutant threshold at any hour, day or night.

Who is affected

The US restaurant and food service industry employs an estimated 15.7 million people. About five million of them spend all of their working hours in the kitchen.

Galarza, who is a co-author as well as the person who found most of the kitchens, told Canary Media the results show “what it is we’re exposing ourselves to.” In the release, he said that kitchen staff should not have to accept excessive heat or polluted air as part of the job, and that the study gives owners and chefs better information on what equipment choices mean for the workplace.

Rob Jackson, a Stanford professor of Earth system science and a co-author, said burning gas in a restaurant kitchen is as suspect as burning it at home, and that the all-electric kitchens emitted none of the pollution seen in the gas ones. Jackson directs a Stanford programme called Electrification for Health. PSE ran the work under its Methane + Health Initiative. Readers should know that the authors have a long record of research on the health costs of burning gas indoors. Panama Bartholomy, executive director of the Building Decarbonization Coalition, which promotes electrification, welcomed the results in a statement quoted by Canary Media.

What the study cannot say

The sample is small. Twenty-seven kitchens spread across California, Pennsylvania and New York is a modest number, and only three of them were all-electric. Kitchens that agreed to be monitored may not look like the average restaurant, and the researchers did not select them at random. The study measured air and temperature, not the health of the people working in the kitchens. Whether any of these readings has made someone sick is a separate question that this work does not try to answer.

The yardsticks also come from different places. Some were written for outdoor air, some for one-hour exposures, and one is a recommended workplace limit. They are accepted ways of judging whether air is harmful, but they are not all legal limits that a kitchen would be cited for breaking.

What happens next

OSHA’s proposed heat rule has not been finalised. Legal analysts tracking the rulemaking say it has stalled, and that the Labor Department’s regulatory agenda points to a supplemental proposal in December 2026. Until a federal standard exists, OSHA relies on its general duty clause to cite employers for heat hazards, and a number of states, California among them, enforce their own rules.

For owners, the study points to two things that can be changed: how well the kitchen is ventilated and which fuel the appliances burn. Its authors describe both as the main controllable factors behind the air and heat that workers face.