Source: The Week
Nobel laureate and chairman of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr R.K. Pachauri, was in the eye of a storm over allegations of corruption and alleged errors in the IPCC’s report on the causes of climate change. Pachauri has something to smile about now and feels vindicated on account of the apologies tendered to him, notably by The Daily Telegraph, London, which had published a series of articles against him, and The Sunday Times, London, which had questioned the IPCC’s findings on the susceptibility of the Amazon rainforest.Coinciding with the clean chit given by his media critics, however, is the report of the InterAcademy Council that recommends a fundamental reform of the IPCC’s procedures and management structure.
The IAC has also found the current two six-year terms for the IPCC chairman too long and is for limiting it to the term of one assessment.
In an exclusive interview with THE WEEK, the 70-year-old says he was the target of sceptics and vested interests as he was symbolic of the larger cause of climate change science. Pachauri, however, warns that although the sceptics and lobbyists are a weakened lot, their attacks are bound to continue. Elected to the chair of the IPCC in 2002 and then in 2008, Pachauri admits that the panel is not well-equipped, financially or in terms of manpower, to deal with the attacks launched on it and says he is hopeful of the IAC’s recommendations. Excerpts from the interview:
Do you feel vindicated?
I knew that truth would prevail. To a large extent, justice has been done. I was symbolic of the larger cause of climate change science. The falsehoods that were being propagated were aimed at damaging climate change talks and attacking the IPCC. I was merely an emblem of the larger issue that these people wanted to harm and damage over the so-called errors in the IPCC’s fourth assessment report. Except for one error, which we ourselves acknowledged about the Himalayan glaciers, the doubts raised have proved to be unfounded.
I do feel vindicated. Justice has been done, and I am happy about it. I have faith that climate change deliberations will reach their culmination.
Do the climate change sceptics now stand defeated?
I don’t look at it in terms of triumph or defeat. Information that is relevant and is based on robust science has triumphed. However, there are a whole lot of vested interests involved, and the tensions and troubles are likely to continue.
Who are these sceptics and what are their motives?
The Centre for Public Integrity in Washington, DC, came out with a report in 2009, according to which lobbyists in Washington had been put in charge of a mission to thwart climate change talks.
There are 2,300 lobbyists whose sole responsibility is to topple the talks. The report has estimated that around 770 companies are funding these people. So there are four lobbyists for every member of Congress, and a big money interest is involved.
We have always encouraged a healthy debate that is based on reliable information. However, the information provided by these lobbyists is full of falsehood and is a distortion of facts.
If you go through the annals of history, every time some new knowledge has been propagated or some change begins to take place, some people have fought the change tooth and nail. These people see threat to their set ways, and for their short-term benefits are questioning climate change talks.
How many of them have a thorough understanding of the subject?
In our reports, we have always included articles that have a point of view that is different from ours. However, these articles should have a published record, should be scholarly and should have been published in peer-reviewed journals.
There are those who misinform and misrepresent facts. While their number is dwindling, their decibel level is high and hence they get a lot of attention.
Where do the sceptics get their funding from?
Again, I would like to refer to the report of the Centre for Public Integrity. A report in The Times of London on July 19 talked about some oil companies funding a group of sceptics. It is perhaps those who feel threatened, such as fuel companies or automobile manufacturers, who fund these people.
What measures did you and the IPCC take to ensure that they were exposed?
I had KPMG do a forensic audit of my own finances, and the findings were made public. I sent my IT returns to newspaper offices. I have made an effort at being totally transparent since I joined TERI [The Energy and Research Institute]. There is no scope for anyone working with TERI to get any personal benefits from any services rendered. Whatever is earned should come to TERI.
I am doubly careful in this regard and have made the details known. However, those who want to attack will distort facts.
Have your detractors used the opportunity to attack you?
By and large people stood by me. Out of a hundred people, there were ten who probably got some entertainment by seeing someone in distress.
Would you have liked Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh to be more supportive of you and the IPCC’s findings?
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is the head of the government, and he is a person who the whole world respects. He stood by us and supported the IPCC. If he supported us, I can conclude that the Government of India supported us. So I have no complaints.
How big a threat do the sceptics pose to the global talks to be held in Mexico?
Two weeks ago, I was in Mexico and met the president. The Mexican foreign minister was in Delhi recently. Mexico, in my expectation, is not going to achieve anything dramatic or revolutionary. But some steps forward will be taken. There is a certain level of realism, and most world leaders want action on climate change.
Just how well-equipped is the IPCC to handle the threats?
The IPCC has a lean secretariat and runs on a budget of 7-8 million Swiss francs that can go up to 10 million Swiss francs if there is a large amount of action.
We have no capacity to indulge in an outreach programme to deal with the ill-informed attacks on us. However, in today’s age of fast moving information, we need to respond instantly. Lies spread like wildfire, and we are not really well-equipped to deal with that.
I requested the IAC and the UN secretary general to make an assessment of the IPCC’s procedures. The IAC’s recommendations, when taken on board, will help us take the attacks head on.