If climate change is on top of the agenda worldwide today, it’s because of the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Its last report in 2007 emphasised upon the adverse impact of climate change and the need for action. While the global community will be meeting in Copenhagen in December to conclude a post-Kyoto climate change agreement, IPCC has got down to scope out the structure of its next assessment report due in 2014. FE’s Rajiv Tikoo spoke to IPCC chair Rajendra K Pachauri about IPCCs role, the progress of the climate change negotiations and the likely outcome. Excerpts:
What is the progress on IPCCs fifth assessment report How is it going to be different from the previous report?
These are early days. But we will be looking at the latest knowledge and the policy inputs to plan the structure of the report. We will have to come out with a greater regional detail about the impacts of climate change. We will certainly go much deeper into the economic aspect in terms of the costs and the benefits of taking action. We will address some of the gaps that exist and reduce some of the uncertainties. The general thrust and the knowledge that exits will not change materially from the previous reports. After all we are not forecasting the weather. We are projecting climate change. Its less than 18 months since our last report came out in November 2007. Nothing dramatic has happened since then.
IPCC has been criticised for various reasons ranging from having a preconceived agenda to being conservative. Are you addressing such questions?
I think that is purely speculation. There is not a single issue that has got compromised. This is no political negotiations. The last word lies with the authors. Our reports are based on peer reviewed literature. Its not something that the authors manufacture. Its based on solid published science. So, I think its just a misleading view, which is being perpetrating by people with extreme positions.
The climate change issue has outgrown the IPCC. Isnt it time to review the role of IPCC, particularly the six-yearly assessments to stay current with the latest research findings?
We have done that. By and large all the governments have reaffirmed that what IPCC has been doing is solid and has to be built on. We will certainly continue with these six-yearly assessments. Anything shorter than that is neither conclusive nor desirable because the kind of resources that it would take will not make it a practical proposition. By and large I think they have all supported what the IPCC is doing and the manner in which its doing.
What is you assessment of the ongoing negotiations leading up to the Copenhagen climate change summit in December?
Given the nature of the negotiations and the fact that you have so many diverse interests over there, I am not too sure anything else would work. And unfortunately if you have a country like the US, which didnt ratify the Kyoto protocol, there is very little that the global body can do. I think the only answer is to create awareness among public in every country, which has certainly helped in the case of the US now. I think, in the ultimate analysis, you really need to see that in a democracy in particular the public is well informed. And if they are, action will follow.
Developing countries like India are complaining that the agenda for the post-Kyoto agreement is being set in favour of industrialised countries to put pressure on the former to take on emission cuts. Please comment.
The pressure on developing countries was always there from the beginning. It has increased largely because of various reasons. China, for instance, is supposed to be emitting much more than the US. So, all of this becomes very visible.
China is much ahead of India in emissions. So, should India decouple itself from China to put up a better case for itself?
Undoubtedly, there is a lot of difference between India and China. On the other hand, there is some benefit in India and China sticking together. If you start creating divisions in this group of countries, then obviously their position will be weakened. So there is a benefit and there is a problem. But I think its better for India and China and developing countries to be clubbed together.
If developing countries dont make a commitment, what do they have to offer during negotiations?
Well, developing countries can certainly come up with their own action plans. India has one. I think this should reassure everybody in the world that India is serious about taking action on climate change. I think developing countries will very rightly not accept emission reduction commitments but they can certainly take actions, which will in effect limit emissions or growth of emissions in the future. I think you will have a number of developing countries doing that.
Is India playing its role well?
I think there are some nuances that we need to look at carefully. We need to project a little more effectively the kind of things that we are doing. And, if necessary, link them up with the kind of money that would be required to implement them. I believe that those are some of the nuanced changes that we can certainly make in our position
India is an aspiring global power. Does India really have a case to ask for financial support?
Well, in certain respects India will certainly have a justification for asking for funding. For example, the cost of renewable energy generation is much higher than that of conventional power. Where is that money going to come from I think as a matter of principle developed world has to step in and provide those resources.
At the same time, is there a case for removing perverse subsidies on fossil fuels?
Undoubtedly. You take the case of kerosene subsidy. Its the most perverse form of subsidisation that you can think of. Where is the bulk of that money going Its not going to the poor consumer who is buying kerosene. Its going largely for adulteration of petroleum products. This kind of subsidy has to go. Its absolutely ridiculous to continue it.
Whats holding back India from setting an example for others?
I think there are quite a few issues. Firstly, I don’t think the leadership has really focused on climate change. Im not talking about an individual or a political party in particular. Secondly, the very structure of government militates against taking action on energy security because ours is such a fragmented way of dealing with the energy sector that we really dont have any cohesive policy. Unless you have a strategic vision of how things have to be brought together, we are not going to see much action.
What is the biggest challenge in achieving a strong climate change treaty in Copenhagen?
Time. We are very short on time. I think its going to be the biggest problem. Even if the negotiations are moving in the right direction, its going to require a superhuman effort to be able to nail down a detailed agreement. Thats really the big challenge.
What kind of breakthrough is needed to achieve it How much difference can the US make?
A strong commitment on part of the US can really make an enormous difference. If there is someone who can tilt the balance, its President Obama. If he is really going to bring about a major reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, then it will make a difference globally. But if he is not able to do it and there is a weak commitment on part of the US, there are countries in Europe that would also like to roll back their plans. In fact, some countries in Europe are already saying that 20/ 20 / 20 deal is a little too much.
What is the worst possible outcome and what happens in that scenario?
If we are not able to arrive at a strong agreement in Copenhagen, it will be the worst case scenario. If it were to happen, I personally think its better not to have an agreement than to have a weak agreement. Its better to keep the issue open and if necessary reconvene a few months later and then see if we can firm up things at that stage.
What happens if there is a weak agreement?
This is something that can always be reopened. I personally think that Copenhagen may not be the last word if some targets are set for 2020. After we come out with the fifth assessment report in 2014, its entirely possible that people may realise that they have to look at the whole agreement afresh and who knows there might be a tightening of targets. But that is purely speculation.
What do you think of Indian industrys role in fighting climate change?
Industry will do what the policy framework requires them to do. Industries will function within pricing systems within a fiscal regime that requires them to take certain actions. So, I think the direction has to come from the top, the govt. Of course, the government has to consult the industry and carry it along with it. But the initial strategisation has to come from the govt.
Source: The Financial Express
Published on 05 June 2009