Table talk with Dr Rajendra Kumar Pachauri
Cheong Suk-Wai, Straits Times 1 Dec 09;
WITH one of the year's surprise box-office hits being the climate change disaster movie 2012, to say nothing of the growing concern about climate change globally, Dr Rajendra Kumar Pachauri has much to cheer about as he gears up for the United Nations Climate Change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, which begins next Monday.
Since 2002, Dr Pachauri, 69, has chaired the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world's top body on the science of global warming. It shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with climate change champion and former United States vice-president Al Gore.
Dr Pachauri's other day job is as director-general of India's policy think-tank, The Energy and Resources Institute. The mechanical engineer received his PhD in industrial engineering and economics from North Carolina State University and taught there from 1974 to 1977 before returning to India in the late 1980s.
Although he is not a climate change scientist, he is passionate about the issue and has been president of the International Association for Energy Economists since 1988.
Youthful despite sporting a beard with a distinctive white stripe down the middle, he sometimes signs off his e-mail as 'Patchy'. He tries to do his bit for the environment by eschewing meat and using the air-conditioner sparingly.
Over the phone from his New Delhi office recently, he mused about how hard it was to get countries to commit to taking steps to stave off the biggest long-term threat to mankind's survival:
# In 1988, you first spoke of the dangers of climate change to a roomful of fossil fuel-crazy folk. What made you do that?
I'd studied the science of climate change and found very compelling the connection between what might happen and its implications for mankind.
# What about the science was so compelling even then?
Well, the enormous growth and emission of greenhouse gases and our growing dependence on fossil fuels, which meant that our emissions would continue to grow. Also, almost 100 years before, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius had predicted (the greenhouse effect) if we continued to use fossil fuels.
# How can we fight climate change when many can't be bothered because they say they won't be around to suffer the consequences?
It's wrong for them to believe that they won't suffer the consequences: The consequences are here! You have heat waves, floods and droughts happening extensively, and it will be much worse in the next 20 years. So it's a fallacy to think that they are not going to suffer. They will. They should also be concerned about what their children will say. We want to be remembered as responsible parents, don't we?
# What of our forefathers then?
They were so drunk (with) the illusion that the good life was (about) producing and consuming more and more, with much higher incomes and at lower prices, that nobody really bothered to look at the consequences.
# But now developed countries want to do something about it but developing countries are reluctant. How are you going to make the twain meet in Copenhagen?
The very fact that The Straits Times is talking to me on the telephone is a (symptom) of the profound change that's taking place now - the spread of awareness about climate change. Three years ago, you wouldn't have telephoned me about it.
# Perhaps.
I mean, look at the amount of advertising that companies are doing to appear to be green. They're doing it only because they know consumers want it. So certainly, in the developed world, people realise it can't be business as usual.
# But the developing world is carrying on as usual.
I'm reminded of what (Mahatma) Gandhi said when he was asked whether he would not want India to reach the same level of prosperity as Britain. His answer was that Britain used half the planet's resources to become prosperous. And then he asked: 'How many planets will India require?'
# What has fuelled this growing global awareness?
I do not want to exaggerate the fact, but I think the 2007 IPCC report was a force. You know, I decided many years ago that it's not enough just to produce good reports. The public has to get to know about whatever we produce as a body.
# And how have you gone about doing that?
Well, by talking to charming ladies from The Straits Times.
# You're too kind.
But seriously, you have to work with the media, use every single opportunity to tell people the truth. Then I hope rationality will take over.
# But the topic of climate change is awfully subjective: One man's use of corn as biofuel is another man's starvation.
Sure. It's for this reason that I've been telling everybody to eat less meat because the meat (production) cycle today is extremely intensive in emitting greenhouse gases. I mean, there are people who eat steak five times a day. Which doctor would advise that kind of diet?
# So salad will give us salad days again?
All I'm saying is, eat less meat and, if it's possible, shun red meat. You live in Singapore; you get lots of good seafood. Stick to that.
# You told the Financial Times recently that if United States President Barack Obama wasn't supporting your cause, it would be 'hopeless'. Are you that desperate?
I was only commenting on something which is common sense. If the US - which is responsible for 20 per cent of the carbon emissions, with a population of 300 million only - is not part of the deal, where is the inspiration or encouragement for other countries that are emitting a very small fraction of what it is emitting? And Mr Obama has said very clearly that the US will lead in this area - not that they're leading at this point of time.
# But in sounding so desperate, haven't you thrown cold water on the IPCC's efforts?
It's a fact. I mean, we have been negotiating for two years now, since (the 2007 UN Climate Change Conference in) Bali and, unfortunately, we haven't made much progress. I'm not saying there won't be agreement in Copenhagen - but it's absolutely essential the US be there.
# What would be the most realistic outcome of the Copenhagen talks?
I think there will probably be just a strong framework agreement, which essentially tells you what more needs to be done by what date but doesn't really spell out specific commitments. What we need is a firm agreement for the year 2020, and it's possible that we might get something like that.
# How so?
Well, it's entirely possible that the US will commit to reducing its emissions by X amount by 2020. If it does that, that commitment could snowball.
# Must there be a global consensus before we can have emissions cuts? Has the consensual approach unwittingly slowed down negotiations?
This is a problem that affects every part of the globe, so responsibility for taking action is on the shoulders of every country. But not everyone has to take the same burden.
# Might not self-interest win the day, with the need for economic growth overriding everything else?
I agree. But I think people realise that this is not going to work in the long run. If the world is going to move to a low-emissions future, you'd better be part of it because any high carbon-emitting products you have are not going to sell well in the global market.
Sink or swim together
Straits Times 1 Dec 09;
FORCEFUL and soulful at once, climate change czar Rajendra Kumar Pachauri gets to the heart of the matter on going green.
# Those who dismiss climate change as gobbledygook
'Those who are still in the Middle Ages in their middle age should be concerned about what they will suffer when they get much older.'
# The roots of climate change
'We were overtaken by the power of advertising (which) has been telling us all to consume more, throw away what is old and buy what is new.'
# Ad blitzes by companies claiming to be 'eco-friendly'
'Several of them are not doing a damn thing about really becoming green, but they at least want to project that they are green.'
# Going green to save the planet
'We do not have to go back to living in caves, but we do have to reduce, re-use and recycle.'
# What he tells parents
'Would they want their children to say, 'Oh, my God, that generation was so damn selfish that to serve their own short-term ends, they've left us a world which is very difficult to live in'?'
# Why not eating meat will heal the world
'If you worry about what you eat, which is intrinsic to how you live, hopefully it'll show up in your other actions as well.'
# Why he insists on a consensual approach to climate change talks, an approach that may make a global agreement on climate more difficult to achieve
'If you have any exceptions, then one exception will turn into 10 exceptions. So, everybody must sink or swim together.'
# What will happen at the Copenhagen meet next week
'Countries might more or less regurgitate the language of the Bali (climate meet in 2007), where it was said that deep cuts in emissions would be attempted.'
CHEONG SUK-WAI
