Inclusion of children and youth in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Reports (AR1-AR6)

Abstract

Climate change disproportionately impacts the health and wellbeing of children and youth, who are often excluded from climate policy, legislation, and finance frameworks. This article quantifies how frequently children and youth are referenced in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Reports (AR1-AR6) and analyses related evidence in AR6. We find references to children and youth in the IPCC reports increased substantially in AR6. The frequency of references varies considerably across Working Group (WG) reports and chapters, with most references appearing in two WG II chapters: ‘Health and Wellbeing’, and ‘Africa’. The vast majority of content on children pertains to climate risks; most commonly to physical health, with few references to other key risks including education, migration and violence. Conversely, the majority of references to youth relate to climate responses, highlighting research on climate activism more often than risks to youth or evidence on procedural inclusion. Relatedly, children are commonly framed as vulnerable and youth as climate activists. This framing obscures the intersectional, complex needs and capabilities of children and youth. To enhance the comprehensiveness of future IPCC reports, there is a critical need for funding and inclusion of more research on climate change, children and youth.

Children are disproportionately affected by inaction on climate change. This content analysis finds that references to children and youth in the IPCC reports are increasing but are largely limited to children’s health risks and to youth activism.

Introduction

The harmful impacts of climate change on children’s physical health, particularly among the most vulnerable, are well documented^1–6. A growing evidence base links the escalating climate crisis with other adverse outcomes among children and youth including mental health issues^7,8, educational exclusion^9,10, exposure to violence^11–13, child marriage¹⁴, and child labour¹⁵. These impacts are set to intensify and are felt more acutely by those disadvantaged by geography, disability, race, ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic or citizenship status^16,17.

In addition to being disproportionately impacted by the climate crisis^18–20, children and youth are also central to efforts to address the climate crisis including driving climate action through protest, social media activity and advocacy in families, communities, courtrooms and political arenas^21–25. The majority of this research addresses children and youth together, but there is also a growing body of work that focuses on the particular importance of and barriers to children’s meaningful participation in climate action^26–30.

Despite their unique vulnerability and adaptive capacity, children and youth are largely excluded from climate policy, legislation, and finance frameworks³¹. For example, climate financing and national budgets do not prioritise the social sectors responsible for children’s education, health and protection, which are critical to their wellbeing³². Just 2.4% of finance provided by multilateral climate funds during 2006−2023 addressed children’s unique climate vulnerabilities either in a direct or marginal way³³. Further, a 2024 review of national adaptation plans shows that children’s needs are systematically underaddressed in national climate policy³⁴. There has been progress in recent years towards recognising the importance of youth participation in international climate governance, specifically the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), though research shows that the quality and scope of youth participation needs improvement^35–37. Further, children remain largely excluded from these spaces^38,39. Importantly, children’s voices are also neglected in climate governance at the national and local levels, though there is some progress on this front in the area of disaster risk reduction^21,40,41.

The IPCC reports are the most authoritative distillation of knowledge on climate change, with wide-ranging and substantial implications for scientific and popular discourse⁴², funding agendas⁴³, policy and legislation⁴⁴, research and evidence generation⁴⁵, and climate-related litigation⁴⁶. It has been well documented that the evidence presented reflects the procedural and political aspects of the drafting process and social and disciplinary backgrounds of the volunteer IPCC authors thereby limiting the scope and nature of the research included^47–50.

Given the IPCC reports’ importance in setting the research and policy agenda for climate action, and the critical knowledge gaps surrounding what climate change means for children and youth, this article evaluates how children and youth are represented in the IPCC Assessment Reports. First, to provide historical context, we quantify how frequently children and youth are explicitly referenced in AR1−AR6. Though the IPCC does not define these demographics, children are defined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child as people under age 18, and while youth are defined variably, this group is generally understood to encompass people ages 15−24 years, up to 35 years in some cases^37,51.

Next, we conduct a content analysis of AR6 to (i) identify which chapters reference children and youth and frequency of those references; (ii) identify the context in which this evidence on children and youth is presented, paying particular attention to specification of climate risks, responses and explicit co-benefits and, finally; (iii) highlight the conceptual lenses used in cases when children and youth are referenced. Further information on code development is available in Supplementary Table 1. Our discussion of these results draws on the existing literature on climate knowledge production and studies at the intersection of climate change and children’s rights. We conclude by providing recommendations for more explicitly centring children’s rights, well-being and perspectives in climate change research and policy making.

Results

Inclusion of children and youth in the IPCC reports

We find a steady increase in references to children across the six IPCC Assessment Reports between 1990 and 2022, with the largest jump between AR5 (2013−14) and AR6 (2021−22), where the number of references more than doubled (Fig. 1). Meanwhile, evidence directly referencing youth was consistently thin before the most recent report, with only three references in AR1 (1990) and nine references in AR5 (2013−14). In AR6 (2021−22), the focus on youth increased almost tenfold.

Fig. 1. References to children and youth in IPCC AR1-AR6 (1990−2022).

Counts for children (keywords. baby, infant, child, childhood, grandchild, girl, boy, minor, newborn, toddler, the very young) and youth (keywords:g youth, the young, young people, young person, young woman/women/female, young man/men/male, adolescent, adolescence, teenager) in IPCC Assessment Reports (AR1−AR6). Counts exclude the Preface, Foreword, Cross-Chapters, Technical Summary, Annexes, Index, and References.

In the most recent IPCC report (AR6, 2021/2022), children and youth were mentioned 331 times across nearly 4000 pages of the Working Group I−III reports (Fig. 2). Children were mentioned more frequently (n = 242, 73%) than youth (n = 89, 27%). All references were in the Working Group II report ‘Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’ (WGII) and Working Group III report ‘Mitigation of Climate Change’ (WGIII), with none in Working Group I titled ‘Physical Science Basis’. Approximately a quarter (26%) of references to children and one third (33%) of references to youth included them in a list, alongside two or more other groups.

Fig. 2. Summary of references to children and youth in IPCC AR6 (2021−2022).

Distribution of total references to children and youth (n = 331) in AR6 by risk and response categories. Each paragraph was counted as one reference. Paragraphs with references to both children and youth (n = 19) are included in both counts. Image created using SankeyMATIC.

Two overarching context codes emerged from our analyses. First was climate risks, both existing and forecasted, making up almost two-thirds (66%, n = 217) of references. Second was climate responses, both mitigation and adaptation interventions, making up 34% (n = 114) of references. The majority of references to children focused on risks (76%), while the majority of references to youth focused on responses (64%).

References to children and youth were mostly in WGII (n = 278, 84%) compared to WGIII (n = 53, 16%). The distribution of references between children and youth also varied by report: in WGII there were over three times more references to children (n = 211) than youth (n = 67), while the number of references to children (n = 31) and youth (n = 22) was more evenly distributed in WGIII.

In each report, the frequencies of references to children and youth varied by Chapter (Table 1). In WGII, children and youth appeared most often in the chapters titled ‘Health, Wellbeing and the Changing Structure of Communities’ and ‘Africa’. In WGIII, they were discussed most frequently in the chapters on ‘Buildings’ and ‘Cross-sectoral Perspectives’ (more specifically, the subsection on food systems). Across the summary for policymaker (SPM) sections of these reports—their most visible element and the only section approved by politicians—there were seven references to children and youth.

Table 1.

Distribution of references to children and youth in IPCC AR6 (2021-2022)

Working group II						Working group III
Chapter title	Children		Youth		Total	Chapter title	Children		Youth		Total
	n	%	n	%			n	%	n	%
00—Summary for Policymakers	2	1%	2	3%	4	00—Summary for Policymakers	0	0%	3	14%	3
01—Point of Departure and Key Concepts	0	0%	3	5%	3	01—Introduction and Framing	1	3%	1	5%	2
02—Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecosystems and Their Services	2	1%	0	0%	2	02—Emissions Trends and Drivers	1	3%	1	5%	2
03—Ocean and coastal ecosystems and their services		0%		0%	0	03—Mitigation pathways compatible with long-term goals					0
04—Water	15	7%	2	3%	17	04—Mitigation and development pathways in the near- to mid-term					0
05—Food, Fibre and Other Ecosystem Products	19	9%	7	11%	26	05—Demand, Services and Social Aspects of Mitigation	2	6%	4	18%	6
06—Cities Settlements and Key Infrastructure	17	8%	12	17%	29	06—Energy Systems	1	3%	0	0%	1
07—Health, Wellbeing and the Changing Structure of Communities	47	22%	10	14%	57	07—Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Uses					0
08—Poverty, Livelihoods and Sustainable Development	20	10%	5	8%	25	08—Urban systems and other settlements					0
09—Africa	42	20%	10	15%	52	09—Buildings	12	39%	1	5%	13
10—Asia	11	5%	1	2%	12	10—Transport					0
11—Australasia	1	0%	2	3%	3	11—Industry					0
12—Central and South America	6	3%	2	3%	8	12—Cross sectoral Perspectives	8	26%	1	5%	9
13—Europe	3	1%	2	3%	5	13—National and Sub-national Policies and Institutions	1	3%	2	9%	3
14—North America	3	1%	1	2%	4	14—International Cooperation	1	3%	5	23%	6
15—Small Islands	1	0%	3	5%	4	15—Investment and Finance	2	6%	0	0%	2
16—Key Risks across Sectors and Regions	14	7%	1	2%	15	16—Innovation, Technology Development and Transfer	0	0%	2	9%	2
17—Decision-Making Options for Managing Risk	1	0%	3	5%	4	17—Accelerating the Transition in the Context of Sustainable Development	2	6%	2	9%	4
18—Climate Resilient Development Pathways	7	3%	1	2%	8
Total	211	100%	67	100%	278	Total	31	100%	22	100%	53

Table shows counts of keywords for children and youth (n = 331) in the IPCC AR6 reports. Counts exclude the Preface, Foreword, Cross-Chapters, Technical Summary, Annexes, Index, and References. Paragraphs with references to both children and youth (n = 19) are included in both counts.

Climate risks for children and youth in AR6

Most of the evidence presented on risks pertained to children (185/217, 85%) not youth (32/217, 15%) (Fig. 3). We coded each reference to two risks: out of 217 references to risk, a total of 313 risks were identified (276 for children and 37 for youth). Among children, the risks discussed most frequently were physical health (n = 98 references, 36% among references to children), nutrition (n = 60, 22%), mortality (n = 31, 11%) and water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) (n = 21, 8%), together making up approximately three-quarters of risks described. In contrast, among youth the most commonly mentioned risks were mental health (n = 8 references 22% among references to youth), general burden (n = 8, 22%), livelihoods (n = 6, 17%) and migration (n = 4, 11%). References categorised as general burden did not specify one particular risk, noting, for example, ‘increased vulnerability’ or ‘residual risk’.

Fig. 3. Climate-related risks for children and youth in IPCC AR6 (2021−2022).

Figure shows counts of climate-related risks in the IPCC AR6 reports. Of 331 references to children and youth in IPCC AR6, there were 217 (66%) references to a climate-related risk. Each of these references was coded to up to two risks (a total of 313 risks). Paragraphs with references to both children and youth (n = 19) are included in both counts.

Evidence linked climate change to key health risks including increases in water and sanitation-related illnesses, child and maternal malnutrition, vector-borne and infectious diseases, and respiratory illnesses. Research on children’s heightened vulnerability to heat stress and other extreme weather events was a particular area of focus.

Referenced evidence on risks to mental health (children: n = 10, youth: n = 8) included vulnerability to post-traumatic stress following adverse climate events, climate-related anxiety and stress, and long-term cognitive impairment from air pollution and malnutrition. Evidence on livelihood risks included increased unemployment and poverty among children (n = 11) and youth (n = 6).

Other risks covered less comprehensively included climate-induced migration (children: n = 3, youth: n = 4), and risks to education and play (children: n = 15, youth: n = 3) resulting from extreme weather events, extreme heat and poor air quality, damage to school infrastructure and food systems, water scarcity, family migration and deepening poverty. Evidence on violence and protection-related risks linked climate change to increases in child marriage, child labour, trafficking, physical and sexual violence against children (n = 12), and young men’s involvement in organised violence (n = 1).

Responses to climate change and children and youth

The second context code identified was ‘climate responses’, which captured mitigation and adaptation measures referencing children and youth. These references, each coded for one response, were split evenly between children and youth (57/114 each, 50%), and a majority explicitly discussed a co-benefit for these groups (67%) (Table 2). Where a response was linked to multiple benefits for children or youth, or to unspecified benefits to their wellbeing such as “strengthened capacity”, the reference was coded as “general benefit.”

Table 2.

Co-benefits described for children and youth in IPCC AR6 (2021–2022)

Response category	Sample quote	Co-benefit	Co-benefit count
Collective action and social organising (n = 27)	‘Climate social movements… aim to increase a sense of agency amongst certain social groups (e.g. young people or indigenous communities) that structural change is possible.’ (WGIII, Ch 5, p 557) (co-benefit: voice and political engagement)	Voice and political engagement	2
		No co-benefit specified	25
Governance and planning (n = 25)	‘[P]olycentric governance can enable improved water governance and effective climate change adaptation (medium confidence). However, it can also exacerbate existing inequalities as long as less powerful actors, such as women, Indigenous Peoples and young people, are not adequately involved in the decision-making process (high confidence).’ (WGII, Ch 6, p 973) (co-benefit: general benefit)	Voice and political engagement	8
		General Benefit	5
		Nutrition	2
		No co-benefit specified	10
Economic/health/social systems and protection (n = 19)	‘Adaptive social protection programmes and mechanisms that can support food insecure households and individuals include cash transfers or public work programmes, land reforms, and extension of credit and insurance services that reduce food insecurity and malnutrition during times of environmental stress.’ (WGII, Ch 7, p 1112) (co-benefit: nutrition)	Health	5
		Nutrition	4
		General benefit	2
		Education and play	2
		Violence & CP	2
		Livelihoods	2
		No co-benefit specified	2
Built environment (n = 14)	‘Efficient cook-stoves and improved access to electricity and clean fuels in developing countries will result in substantial time savings for women and children, thus increasing the time for rest, communication, education and productive activities.’ (WGIII, Ch 9, p1000) (co-benefit: education and play)	Education and play	7
		Violence & CP	3
		Health	2
		Livelihoods	2
Community adaptation (n = 11)	‘[T]he protection and restoration of natural areas [has] the potential to decrease the transmission of water- and vector-borne infectious diseases (medium confidence: robust evidence, low agreement). Studies have shown that these measures can diminish the cases of malaria and diarrhoea in Brazil and cases of diarrhoea in children in Colombia.’ (WGII, Ch 12, p 1745) (co-benefit: health)	Health	3
		Education and play	2
		Nutrition	1
		No co-benefit specified	5
Climate-change education (n = 9)	‘Improving ‘climate literacy’ could empower youth, women and men to be active citizens in promoting adherence of governments to international agreements in climate change (Mudombi et al., 2017; Chersich et al., 2019a).’ (WGII, Ch 9, p 1382) (co-benefit: voice and political engagement)	Voice and political engagement	5
		General benefit	2
		No co-benefit specified	2
Food production/systems (n = 7)	‘Youth play a critical role in all sectors of the food system (HLPE, 2021; Figure Box 5.13.1)…. Agrifood policy implementation of adaptation strategies could increase inclusive participation of youth to meet their needs (HLPE, 2021). Inclusive investments in water management, infrastructure, agrifood science, and policies that increase youth access to land, credit, knowledge, education, skills and other crucial resources can support dignified and rewarding agrifood employment (Ahsan and Mitra, 2016; Brooks et al., 2019; HLPE, 2021).’ (WGII, Ch 5, p 820) (co-benefit: general benefit)	Nutrition	5
		General benefit	1
		No co-benefit specified	1
Litigation (n = 2)	‘Youth public trust claims; Government inter-generational liability for inadequate climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts. Our Children’s Trust (a non-profit organisation) and others brought an action against the USA and several executive branch individuals in 2015, claiming damages for their loss of the environment and the defendant’s failure to preserve a habitable climate system by the government’s affirmative actions that actively cause and worsen the climate crisis.’ (WGII, Ch 17, p 2599) (co-benefit: none specified)	No co-benefit specified	2

Table shows counts of climate responses in the IPCC AR6 reports that also mention an explicit co-benefit for children or youth, beyond a general population benefit. Each reference was coded to one co-benefit.

The responses most commonly mentioned for children were in the categories of economic/health/social systems and protection (28%), built environment (25%), governance and planning (18%), and community adaptation (12%) (Fig. 4). For youth, the majority of responses related to collective action and social organising (44%), and governance and planning (26%).

Fig. 4. Climate responses implicating children and youth in IPCC AR6 (2021−2022).

Figure shows counts of climate responses in IPCC AR6 that also mention children or youth. Of 331 references to children and youth in IPCC AR6, 114 (34%) discussed climate responses for children and youth. Each reference was coded to one climate response. Paragraphs with references to both children and youth (n = 19) are included in both counts.

Evidence on collective action and social organising strategies described primarily youth acting outside formal governance systems to influence climate discourse. Children were mentioned in this context only twice. AR6 primarily references research on social movements such as the School Strikes for Climate; the impacts of advocacy around the UNFCCC negotiations and political lobbying. The reports listed increased voice and political engagement as an explicit co-benefit of these strategies (n = 2).

References to children (n = 10) and youth (n = 15) in the context of climate change governance and planning highlighted the importance of youth participation in these processes, and provided select examples for doing so: Children’s Commissions for national climate advocacy (WGII, Ch 6, p 973) and quotas for youth representation in the Seychelles National Climate Council (WGII, Ch 9, p 1310). The reports also underscored the need for governance and planning to account for these groups’ specific vulnerabilities: for example, WGII noted many urban SDG targets omit data on the young (Ch 6, p 912). Evidence associated governance and planning interventions with increased voice and agency, general benefits, and adaptation plans that better respond to young people’s needs.

Evidence on climate responses in economic, health and social protection systems (children: n = 16, youth: n = 3) included efforts to improve quality and access to maternal and child health services, social safety nets, access to credit, traditional land management practices, and corporate social responsibility initiatives. Resulting co-benefits included increased health and nutrition and reduced exposure to harm. One example provided is Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Programme, which is linked to improved nutrition, reduced poverty and child labour among children (WGII, Ch 7, p 1112).

Discussions of climate responses related to the built environment only mentioned children (n = 14). These included electrification, energy-efficient buildings, clean cookstoves, and infrastructure investments for safe travel. This category has the most co-benefits of all those listed here: benefits in education and health, safety, and poverty alleviation. In the only mention of maladaptation from climate action, WGIII highlighted child labour in the supply chains for minerals involved in the clean energy transition (Ch 15, p 1603).

Evidence on the impact of community adaptation related to local initiatives including habitat restoration and disaster risk reduction (children: n = 7, youth: n = 4). Co-benefits mentioned of these interventions included health, nutrition and education. AR6 included limited evidence on the adaptive potential of climate change education (children: n = 3, youth: n = 6) in formal school settings and eco camps for youth, and through Indigenous knowledge exchange. Finally, AR6 provided two examples of litigation as a response: youth public trust claims in the United States seeking to impose ‘government intergenerational liability’ for inadequate climate action and an Australian regulatory challenge that established a ‘duty of care’ to children.

Framing of children and youth in the IPCC reports

Finally, we inductively identified ten thematic frames used when the evidence on children and youth was presented in AR6: activism, participation, coloniality, gender, inequality/inequity, intergenerational, justice, intersectionality, rights and vulnerability (Fig. 5). The inequality frame described children and youth as unfairly and unequally affected by climate risks compared to other groups, or described adverse impacts on children living in contexts of pre-existing social inequality exacerbated by climate change. The vulnerability frame explicitly characterised children and youth as being vulnerable or at risk, without comparison to other groups or further elaboration. The gender frame described additional or specific impacts on girls and young women, or, in very few cases, on boys and young men.

Fig. 5. Framing of references discussing children and youth in IPCC AR6 (2021−2022).

Figure shows the framing of references of children and youth in the IPCC AR6 report. Each of the 331 references to children and youth in IPCC AR6 was coded to up to two frames. The graph shows frames as a percentage of the total number of frames applied to children (n = 244) and youth (n = 109). Paragraphs with references to both children and youth (n = 19) are included in both counts.

We applied at least one frame code to 174/242 references related to children and 76/89 related to youth. Among references to children, the frames most commonly applied were inequality (35%), vulnerability (32%) and gender (18%). In contrast, among the references to youth, the frames applied most frequently were activism (24%), participation (18%), inequality (17%) and vulnerability (14%). Participation frames (children: n = 8, youth: n = 20) and activism (children: n = 2, youth: n = 26) most commonly related to collective action and social organising strategies and governance and planning responses, but occasionally also applied to interventions in education and food systems. There were very few references to intersectionality, justice, rights, intergenerational justice and coloniality.

Discussion

The IPCC Assessment Reports represent the state of the art of global knowledge about the drivers, impacts, and responses to the climate crisis. Our analysis shows a substantial increase in the focus on children and youth in AR6 compared to previous reports. Despite this progress, children and youth remain peripheral: for example, in the Summary for Policymakers, the reports’ most high-profile sections, children are mentioned just two times. Our finding on the overall inattention to research on children in the IPCC reports is consistent with a recent systematic review of the literature on children, climate and health, which found “a striking lack of focus” on children, who are often included in studies without disaggregation by age or gender, or consideration of the underlying social, political and economic determinants of health².

Our content analysis of AR6 shows that children, when included, are typically framed as current or potential victims of climate impacts. On the other hand, the disproportionate focus on youth activism frames youth as climate heroes, without a meaningful analysis of the climate risks youth face or how climate responses could better serve youth. Such framings are overly simplistic and indicative of the under-examination of the complex and intersectional implications of global warming for children and young people. The inadequate representation of children and youth in climate change research has real world implications. Children, defined as those below the age of 18, make up nearly a third of the global population, and their experience of climate impacts varies considerably. Without localised, nuanced evidence on the range of climate risks facing the most marginalised children and youth, climate responses will not fully address their needs.

In a 2012 special report on extreme events and disasters, the IPCC noted that climate change studies often describe children as “vulnerable” without elaboration⁵. Our content analysis of AR6 finds a continuing emphasis on the inequitable climate burden children suffer and their overall vulnerability, without attention to the complex nature of these risks. For example, over a quarter of all references to children simply list them among other marginalised groups. Further, most of the content pertains to the current and future physical health risks, the area where evidence is best developed. On the other hand, other risks to children such as forced migration, mental health strain, exposure to violence and education risks are under-represented. Moreover, the intersectional nature of these risks is not well covered.

Evidence on climate responses for children in AR6 focuses on the benefits children may receive from interventions like clean cookstoves and electrification. Meanwhile, the benefits of other structural interventions are framed in general terms, if at all, suggesting a need for further research documenting co-benefits of climate action for children. Responses providing climate-change education for children receive just three mentions. Yet education is a central component of sustainable development⁵², and evidence suggests that education, particularly for girls, is among the most impactful mitigation interventions^10,53.

Just as children are peripheral to the IPCC reports, they remain so in climate policy and practice, especially in areas beyond health. A recent study of 160 countries’ national adaptation policies found that 69% of countries barely mentioned child-related measures, while 28% failed to include any child-specific measures at all^34,40. Of 571 projects supported by multilateral climate funds over 17 years, just one targeted education³³. And country-level cost estimates for climate adaptation allocate merely 2% of financing for health, while overlooking education and social protection entirely³².

The evidence on youth in AR6 has dramatically expanded from previous reports. This progress principally comes from new research on the role of youth in climate activism, reflecting the IPCC reports’ inclusion of youth in the context of climate responses instead of climate risks. Nevertheless, the presentation of evidence on youth and food systems in AR6 is an example of a more holistic approach to connecting climate responses and risks. Here, WGII includes evidence on the role of youth in food systems, while also noting the climate risks they face in that sector, from migration to lack of access to education and skills training, and the ways those challenges are shaped by wealth, gender and background. Similar research and analysis are needed for youth across sectors beyond food systems.

AR6 prominently presents the growing evidence on the power and importance of youth involvement in climate action, including in the Summary for Policymakers. Here, the primary focus is on UNFCCC advocacy and mass mobilisations, reflecting an overemphasis in the underlying literature on activism by mostly white and middle-class youth in the Global North²¹. Meanwhile, youth participation is framed in largely aspirational terms. This points to an immense and unjust burden being placed on youth who are systematically marginalised from climate decision-making and relatively absent from the evidence base used to guide climate action, but also relied on to provide “alternative visions of the future” (WGII) and “shift the possibility space of public policy” (WGIII).

Conversely, children’s climate activism is mentioned just twice in AR6 and their participation in governance and planning is mentioned ten times. There is no reference to the literature on the challenges associated with fulfilling children’s procedural rights in this context, including a lack of voting rights, barriers in access to justice, increasing State pushback to children’s civil and political rights, and their marginalisation from climate decision-making spaces^{20,21,25,31,54,55}. True ‘empowered inclusion’⁵⁶ requires more than children’s placement in governance processes designed for adults, including cultural changes in attitudes and beliefs. Further, we identify a neglect of the impact of climate change on children’s mental health, which is consistent with Zangerl et al.’s research showing that adaptation strategies disproportionately fail to address this pressing issue³⁴.

The child climate victim and youth climate hero are incomplete tropes. They reflect objectively disproportionate climate harms experienced by children, and the remarkable moral clarity and courage demonstrated by youth to address the problem. Yet, as Ford et al. noted of a similar victim-hero frame applied to Indigenous People in AR5, this simplistic framing results in a partial understanding of core issues and limits potential responses⁵⁷. For children, these tropes obscure the transformative potential of meaningfully including them in the design and prioritisation of climate action⁵⁸, and the imperative to address context-specific education and social protection gaps that leave children increasingly vulnerable to violence and exploitation in a warming world⁵⁹. The victim-hero frame also crowds out more nuanced discussion of rights, (intergenerational) justice, and coloniality, which are raised extremely sparingly in discussion of children and youth throughout AR6, but are central to both understanding and remedying climate harms to these groups²⁰.

To holistically incorporate children into the climate change evidence base, a child-rights approach is useful. The Convention on the Rights of the Child provides a globally-ratified legal framework enumerating children’s entitlements and corresponding obligations of signatory States, emphasises that children’s entitlements are interdependent and interrelated, and draws particular attention to the most marginalised children through the principle of non-discrimination. A child-rights approach illuminates the structural, economic, social and biological ways in which climate change affects children^60,61. Within this approach ‘the process is as important as the result’, meaning that children’s rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, information and education, participation and effective remedies are required for effective action²⁰.

The IPCC reports indicate how the global community of climate scientists conceptualises the problem of climate change and prioritises solutions. Our analysis of those reports sheds light on the underlying evidence base on climate, children and youth. Still, the IPCC reports do not comprehensively reflect that underlying evidence base. How these reports include, exclude and frame research on this topic also reflects the IPCC’s internal procedures for “writing climate change”⁴⁷. For example, increasing representation of children and youth in the report is partly attributable to recent efforts by the IPCC to meaningfully incorporate social science and humanities knowledge into AR6^62,63. Similarly, the limitations of the reports’ coverage of children and youth are partly attributable to the lack of representation of these demographics in IPCC procedures⁶⁴, and the expertise and identities of the IPCC volunteer authors, who may not focus on or otherwise have exposure to how climate change impacts children who are marginalised or very young⁵⁰.

To enhance the comprehensiveness of future IPCC reports, there is a critical need for funding and inclusion of more research on climate change, children and youth, particularly among those worst and most immediately affected³³. There is also scope to more fully understand how age intersects with gender, poverty, geography, and other forms of exclusion in shaping climate risks and responses. There are also opportunities for future research to deepen our understanding of best practice in meaningful inclusion of children in climate action, and the benefits of such participation across a range of international, national and local forums. To move beyond the tropes and silences we identify, more research is needed that analyses impacts of colonisation and that centres rights and justice, intersectionality and structural change. Finally, there is also scope for greater young people’s participation in the IPCC drafting process, recognising children and youth as valued stakeholders in knowledge creation.

Methods

We conducted a content analysis of the most recent IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6).

Data extraction

We searched the reports of ‘Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis’, ‘Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’ and ‘Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change’ for references to children and youth. For each AR6 report, we excluded references in the Cross-Chapters and Technical Summaries, which replicated content from elsewhere in the report, Preface, Foreword, Annexes, Indexes, and lists of references as they either replicated content from the main chapters or did not provide substantive content.

Search terms for children were defined based on the inductive review described above, a discussion between the authors, and approaches used by the authors in previous research on children. Child terms included: baby, infant, child, childhood, grandchild, girl, boy, minor, newborn, toddler, the very young. Terms for youth included: youth, the young, young people, young person, young woman/women/female, young man/men/male, adolescent, adolescence, teenager. We followed the Convention on the Rights of the Child to define keywords.

Each paragraph containing at least one keyword related to children or young people was counted as one reference and extracted into an Excel spreadsheet. Multiple references to children or youth in a table, box or figure were counted as unique if they made a different point. Counts were performed twice to ensure accuracy.

Coding framework for content analysis of AR6

Our approach was informed by methods for conventional content analysis⁶⁵, frame analysis approaches⁶⁶, and the methodological approach used by Ford et al. in their analysis of the inclusion of indigenous knowledge and experience in the IPCC assessment report (AR5)⁵⁷.

To develop codes and coding categories, we read a sample of the references to children and youth, identifying codes inductively through familiarisation. We developed a draft coding framework based on themes emerging from the references to children and youth we reviewed. Coding was completed by three authors (E.D., A.B., and O.K.) in three stages: (i) Trial round: We trial-coded a small sample of references to children and young people, evaluated the coding framework for accuracy and reliability, and refined the coding categories. (ii) Full coding: we coded all extracted references while revising and defining coding categories⁶⁷. For each coding category, key examples and decision rules were identified. We coded collaboratively to enforce systematicity, clarity and transparency⁶⁸. Combining perspectives allowed for critical reflection and consistency⁶⁹. (iii) Code refinement and quality checking: we reviewed all coded references and merged coding categories, added new coding categories, and cross checked coding categories. For any new coding categories included at this stage, we completed all prior stages of the coding process to ensure new categories were tested before being applied to the full sample of references. Each reference to children or youth was coded by one researcher and reviewed by a second researcher who independently reviewed the extracted text to ensure consistency and minimise bias. To ensure consistency, a third researcher checked to see if all data had been accurately coded. Any divergences in interpretation discussed in frequent meetings where the coding framework was refined and finalised⁷⁰.

Our coding framework included content, context, and frame codes (Supplementary Table 1). Content codes included the location of the reference to children and youth in AR6, and whether child terms, youth terms or both were used. Context codes identified how content about children and youth was referenced in AR6 and whether it related to climate risks or responses. Frame codes identified how the content on children and youth was framed and what was made salient. We describe each below.

Content codes included the following coding categories: Working group number, chapter, page number, whether the reference was in the Summary for Policymakers or the Technical Summary, and whether the reference mentioned children or youth. References that mentioned both children and youth were counted in both categories. Each reference was assigned a set of content codes.

We identified two overarching context codes: climate risks and climate responses. Climate risks included 10 coding categories pertaining to negative climate impacts on outcomes for children and young people: physical health, mental health; mortality; nutrition; water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH); violence and child protection, livelihoods, migration, education and play, and general burden. General burden was used where the reports identified a generalised risk, for example, ‘increased vulnerability’ or ‘residual risk’. Each reference was assigned up to two out of the 10 coding categories for climate risks.

The second set of context codes was related to climate responses and co-benefits. Climate responses included 8 coding categories for mitigation and adaptation interventions: food production/systems; litigation, economic/health/social systems and protection, climate-change education; community adaptation, the built environment, and governance and planning. The ‘co-benefits’ of these climate responses were coded where the response specifically mentioned a positive outcome for children or youth (rather than a general population benefit). These 7 co-benefits included: education and play; general benefits (used where multiple co-benefits or general benefits such as “strengthened capacity” were specified); health; livelihoods; nutrition; violence and child protection, and voice and political engagement. Each reference was assigned one climate response and one co-benefit.

Finally, we identified a set of frame codes. In keeping with the Ford et al. (2016) approach, we inductively identified ‘frames’ used to discuss children and youth⁵⁷. Framing shapes how researchers think about an issue, how reactions to the issues, and who is held accountable. We identified 10 frame codes: activism; coloniality; gender; inequality/inequity; intersectionality; intergenerational justice; justice; participation; rights; and vulnerability. References where frames were used, were assigned a maximum of two frame codes.

Analysis

We conducted descriptive analyses stratified by children and youth. We calculated the total count of references related to children and youth across the entirety of each assessment cycle, AR1-AR6, to assess the changes in references to children and youth between AR1 (1990) and AR6 (2021−2022).

Our primary analysis focused on AR6. To answer our first research question, we described content code frequencies to show the distribution of references for each AR6 Working Group and by Chapter.

To answer our second and third research questions, on which climate risks and responses in AR6 included children and youth, we counted the total number of references to children and youth which related to the two context codes -- risks and responses. For each context code, we described each of the coding categories and calculated the frequency and percentage of references within each context code in each coding category. For the climate responses context code, we additionally included illustrative quotations for each coding category and a description and count of the co-benefits for each climate response coding category.

Our final research question related to frames used when children and youth were referenced. Frame codes were developed inductively by the research team—see coding section for further detail. We report how frequencies and percentages of the frame codes are distributed across the ten coding categories across children and youth. These descriptive statistics helped us to identify frame patterns within the report.

Limitations and strengths

Our approach has several key limitations. Our coding approach was generous: we included any mention of the keywords related to children and youth, including in a list of other groups, and in cases where there was limited substantive content referring to children and youth specifically. If we had applied more stringent criteria to our definition of referring to children or youth, we would have found fewer mentions. We may, therefore, overestimate the number of references to children and youth. We also do not assume that references to child-related actors (teachers, parents etc.) or child-related institutions (schools, health clinics etc.) are about children unless children and youth are explicitly mentioned and discussed. This is in line with our research aim, however, there may be some risks and responses that impact children which we do not capture. We also do not assess the quality of evidence in the report related to children and young people. Our application of frame codes is based on our reading and analysis of text and does not represent a gender or power analysis of the IPCC report.

The number of references we found were not large enough to disaggregate by sex, gender, disability or other axes of discrimination and marginalisation. Our analysis only includes evidence in the IPCC reports published in 2021 and 2022, which does not reflect all existing evidence of climate change and children. Other key documents, including those at the national level also shape climate policy and climate finance are not included in this analysis and are a key area for future research and analysis.

Our approach also has several key strengths. We comprehensively review every reference to children and youth in the AR6 report in a consistent manner and analyse all the climate risks and responses that relate to children and youth as well as the frames used to discuss children and young people. Our analysis can be used to both describe the current state of evidence on children and youth in the AR6 IPCC report and to identify gaps and silences in the evidence included in the AR6 report. The coding framework could also be applied or adapted for the analysis of future IPCC reports and other climate policy documents.

Author contributions

E.D. A.B. and O.K. all contributed to the conceptualisation, draughting, and data analysis for the research. J.P. contributed to the conceptualisation, analysis and review.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Communications thanks Elisabeth Gibbons, Harriet Thew and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. A peer review file is available.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are contained in the IPCC reports (AR1 to AR6) which are publicly available on the IPCC website (https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/).

Competing interests

E.D. and J.P. disclose employment and consulting activities for organisations that implement programming and undertake advocacy efforts related to children’s rights and climate change, including for Our Children’s Trust, Terre des Hommes and UNICEF. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41467-025-60266-7.