[Vision2020] Interview From Durban: IPCC Chair Pachauri: "Listen to Science" on Global Warming

[Ted Moffett]

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/7/nobel_winning_ipcc_chair_rajendra_pachauri

AMY GOODMAN: This is Climate Countdown, Democracy Now!'s week-long
exclusive coverage of the U.N. conference on climate change. One of
the world's most prominent experts on climate science, Rajendra
Pachauri, is criticizing negotiators at the U.N. Climate Change
Conference here in Durban, South Africa, for not paying enough
attention to science. He is chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, which won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize along with Vice
President Al Gore. I spoke to Dr. Pachauri here in Durban and began by
asking him to introduce himself.

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: I am R.K. Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC. The
International Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988 through
a resolution of the U.N. General Assembly. And as the name indicates,
it’s an intergovernmental body. And it’s carried out an assessment on
regular intervals of all aspects of climate change. In 2007, we
brought out the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. And may I also
say that I had the privilege of receiving, on behalf of the IPCC, the
Nobel Peace Prize in 2007?

AMY GOODMAN: What do you want to see at the end of this week?

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: I’d like to see the science driving some of the
discussions and the decisions that are taken. I’m sorry I don’t see
much evidence of that right now.

AMY GOODMAN: What is, in fact, in evidence then this week?

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: A complete absence of the discussion on the
scientific evidence that we have available on climate change. I would
like to see each day of the discussions, starting with a very clear
presentation on where we are going, what it’s going mean to different
parts of the world, and what are the options available to us by which,
at very low cost and, in some cases, negative cost, we can bring about
a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases. I would like to see an
hour, hour and a half every day being devoted to this particular
subject, because I think then the movement towards a decision would be
far more vigorous, it would be based on reality, and not focusing on
narrow and short-term political issues.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you have a message for President Obama?

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: Well, I would also ask President Obama to
listen to the voice of science. And he has an absolutely outstanding
science adviser in John Holdren. Maybe he should get John to organize
a meeting of the scientists soon after he’s re-elected—if he’s
re-elected—and then determine U.S. policy, as should be the case with
every country in the world, based on the scientific evidence that’s
available.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think the U.S. is weighing scientific evidence now
when they negotiate here in Durban?

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: Actually, to be honest, nobody over here is
paying any attention to science.

AMY GOODMAN: Your report just came out before this 17th COP, this COP
17. The report just came out before the U.N. Climate Change Conference
here in Durban, South Africa. Talk about your findings.

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: Well, that particular report was a special
report on managing the risks from extreme events and disasters to
advance climate change adaptation. So, basically, it looked at extreme
events and disasters that can be connected, if the science clearly
indicates that, with climate change.

So, essentially, we’ve come out with a number of findings. And one of
them is the fact that heat waves are on the increase. And if we don’t
do anything about climate change, then those heat waves, which have
been taking place, let’s say, recently, once in 20 years, by the end
of the century will be once in two years. So, in other words, it’s not
merely a slow and steady increase in temperatures that one is worrying
about; one has to be concerned about an increase in the frequency of
heat waves, which obviously cause very serious results.

We have also come up with the finding that heavy precipitation events,
heavy rainfall, is on the increase, both in terms of frequency and
intensity.

And finally, we have also found, for instance—and these are just three
salient findings that I’m mentioning—that extreme problems in terms of
sea level, related to average increase in sea level, are going to pose
some very serious problems for low-lying coastal areas and the small
island states.

AMY GOODMAN: What are those problems?

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: Well, there will be coastal flooding. And over
a period of time, there could be major damage. As a matter of fact,
one doesn’t want to refer to that as anything related to human-induced
climate change, but what happened with Hurricane Katrina, for
instance, the enormous amount of water that caused damage over there,
is something similar to what we might see in the future.

AMY GOODMAN: And what about the other effects when it comes to
countries that you have seen over time, the effects of global warming,
of climate change?

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: Well, the impacts of climate change are felt on
human health, because, you know, if there are going to be more floods,
more droughts, more heat waves, as we have projected in the Fourth
Assessment Report of the IPCC, all of these also lead to much higher
morbidity, much more sickness and mortality. That means the danger of
deaths. We also know that the impacts on climate change on agriculture
can be serious. As a matter of fact, since we are in the continent of
Africa, we had projected that by 2020, in some African countries, you
get a—you could get a decline of agricultural yields of up to 50
percent on account of climate change.

AMY GOODMAN: Fifty, five-oh, percent?

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: Five-zero, 50 percent, on account of climate
change and climate variability.

AMY GOODMAN: It would halve their agricultural output?

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: Yes, absolutely. Now this will be in some
countries, and particularly those areas which are dependent on
rain-fed agriculture.

AMY GOODMAN: Democracy Now! news hour is based in the United States,
though we are a global radio and television show. In the United
States, there is a major debate going on over whether climate change
really is a problem. Most of the Republican candidates for president
say it is a hoax. The polls that are being taken increasingly show
that Americans don’t think it’s related to human activity, let alone
that it’s a problem that we should have to deal with. What would you
say to them? How do you convince them with the scientific evidence?

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: Well, I mean, the reality is that the IPCC
mobilizes the best scientists from all over the world, thousands of
them. We function in a totally transparent and objective manner. These
are scientists who devote their time without any compensation from the
IPCC. The IPCC has a very lean secretariat. It’s a very small body.
It’s not a large bureaucracy. We are governed by all the governments
of the world. And when we carry out an assessment, at each stage, the
draft has to be peer-reviewed by experts. We take their comments on
board. And then, finally, all the governments of the world review our
drafts. And we take their comments into account and come up with the
final version. So if you were to invent a system whereby the best and
most diverse scientific expertise from all across the globe could be
harnessed for carrying out an assessment of climate change, what would
you come up with? The IPCC.

So, if there are people who still don’t believe that climate change is
for real and is being caused by human beings, then, you know, it’s a
bit like an ostrich putting its head in the sand. And the fact is, we
scientists, and as a scientific body, we welcome debate, because
science thrives on debate. But I would say that if that debate is
being engineered by those who don’t want any change and who probably
see a threat to their own comfortable positions, then I’m sorry, that
has to be questioned.

AMY GOODMAN: So the scientific evidence that shows that climate change
is related to human activity—

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about what that is.

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: Well, I mean, what we have done is we have
increased the concentration of these greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere far beyond what has taken place over the last 650,000
years. So, you know, we have now increased the level of this
concentration of these gases to a level which has actually been very
stable 'til industrialization began, all right? As a result, during
the 20th century, we had average warming of about 0.74 degrees
Celsius, sea-level rise of about 17 centimeters, and a whole range of
impacts, as I mentioned, on human health, on agriculture, on
ecosystems. We have, for instance, estimated and assessed that of all
the species that we carried out an assessment of, if temperature
increase goes above 1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius, 20 to 30 percent of
the species that we've examined would be under threat of extinction.
Now that’s pretty serious, because, you know, there’s so much in our
life that depends on the good health of the biodiverse resources we
have on this planet, and if they’re going to be threatened with
extinction, then it’s going to lead to all kinds of complications,
including perhaps disease, and a loss of an enormous resource that
human society and all living beings have.

AMY GOODMAN: How, an increase in disease?

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: Well, simply because, you know, with changing
conditions, you would have an increase in vector-borne diseases. Some
pests that actually carry disease will thrive under those conditions.

AMY GOODMAN: Like mosquitoes.

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: Absolutely. They’ll thrive under the revised
conditions and the changed conditions. So, you know, there’s going to
be a whole range of these kinds of effects that we need to be
concerned about.

AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Pachauri, can you talk about the Kyoto Protocol, how
important that is, and then the role of the United States at this U.N.
climate change summit?

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: Well, you know, the Kyoto Protocol certainly
had a major benefit in the sense that it created a market for carbon,
and therefore, it certainly would have led to some development of new
technologies, new projects. But, of course, we know now the Kyoto
Protocol is due to run out in 2012. On the issue of the United States—

AMY GOODMAN: But it could be renewed.

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: It could be renewed. It’s entirely possible it
would be renewed. But my contention is that whatever agreement we come
up with should take into account the scientific realities of climate
change. And I get the sense that that’s not happening. Most of the
discussions that are taking place over here are really focusing
narrowly on short-term politics, you know, very narrow interests. But
what we should be concerned about is a global problem and the gravity
of the global problem that we see. The case of the United States, what
can I say? I’m in no position to comment. It’s for the voters of the
United States to decide whether their government is doing the best for
them. And—

AMY GOODMAN: What is the U.S. doing here at the climate talks?

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: Frankly, I haven’t been following what they’ve
been doing, because I don’t have any formal role in the negotiations.
My job is to explain the science to the Conference of the Parties,
which I did in a very limited period of time. And I highlighted why
it’s important to look at some of the impacts of climate change and
prepare to adapt to them, and why it’s so attractive to carry out
mitigation of the emissions of greenhouse gases, because if you reduce
the emissions of greenhouse gases—and this is where I would say those
who don’t believe in climate change and the scientific reality behind
it should at least look at the benefits of higher energy security. If
you reduce your dependence on fossil fuels, if you improve the
efficiency of energy use, use much larger quantities of renewable
energy, you’re going to create a much more energy-secure world. You
also will bring down pollution at the local level, so there would be
health benefits as a result. The impacts on agriculture would be
moderated. There could also be higher employment as a result of
movement to other forms of energy, more efficient use of energy. So,
you know, there’s a whole range of key benefits. And may I say that
from what I’ve seen of recent surveys in the U.S., the public greatly
favors moving towards a new energy regime? So I think somehow the
leaders have to bring together these two realities and see that
climate change is not in any way going to impose a cost or an expense
on the people of the U.S.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, of course, that’s the argument in the United
States, that the U.S. economy is in a recession and that business
cannot afford to be regulated.

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: May I say that’s a totally ridiculous stand?
Because, frankly, we have clearly estimated that if we were to carry
out stringent mitigation globally, the total cost to the global
economy in 2013 will be less than 3 percent of the global GDP, all
right? But if you add all the core benefits that I mentioned—energy
security, lower air pollution, health benefits—then even that 3
percent or less would become lower. And in some cases, there are
actually negative costs associated with this. So I think this is a
myth which has to be exploded. I mean, carrying out mitigation of
emissions of greenhouse gases is not expensive at all.

Also, that has to be seen against the reality of the worst impacts of
climate change that would take place. That’s going to impose a huge
cost. Globally, the world has been suffering a loss each year, ranging
from a few billion dollars to $200 billion in 2005, when Hurricane
Katrina took place. And 95 percent of the deaths that have taken place
from these weather- and climate-related events have taken place in the
developing countries, so the impacts of climate change are not
uniform. Some of the poorest regions in the world are going to be the
worst affected. There’s an issue of ethics and equity over there that
you can’t ignore.

AMY GOODMAN: The fact that this COP 17, this conference, is being held
on the continent of Africa?

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: Well, Africa is by far one of the most
vulnerable regions in the world. We have estimated that. That’s
because the impacts are going to be quite severe. Secondly, the
adaptive capacity that you have in Africa is very, very weak, and the
institutions that require adaptation measures are just not available.
So, you know, this is a very inequitable and, I would say, a very
diverse outcome that we are going to see in the future.

AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Pachauri, can you talk about your own history, how
you came to be the chair of this Nobel Prize-winning international
scientific body? Where did you—where were you born?

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: Well, I was born in India, in the mountains in
India. I started my career as an engineer and then went to the U.S. to
study further. I did my doctoral work there in industrial engineering
and in economics. And then I got into research on energy policy. And
the more I got into it, the more I realized the environmental impacts
of energy production and use are quite serious. And then I got into a
study of the science of climate change. And this was way back in 1988.
And I was convinced that this is one of the most serious challenges
society is going to face.

AMY GOODMAN: Weren’t you a defender of burning of coal?

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: Well, I mean, we know coal is something that
some countries have no option but to use on a large scale. But today
we have got technologies, you know. The IPCC brought out a special
report on renewable energy earlier this year, which clearly shows that
the cost of renewables is coming down at an appreciable rate. And
therefore, I don’t think we have to be married to coal for all time to
come.

AMY GOODMAN: How did you change your view? Because there are many who
had the view that you had a while ago.

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: Well, I think just the scientific evidence of
what would happen if we continue with business as usual, and the
attractiveness of taking action to meet this challenge. The two put
together tell me very clearly that the world has to do things totally
different from what it has done in the past. And that’s not going to
impose a cost on humanity, if we were to do so.

AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Pachauri, you’re a vegetarian?

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: I became a vegetarian some years ago for
environmental reasons.

AMY GOODMAN: Why?

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: Because the meat cycle is highly intensive in
emissions of greenhouse gases. If you look at the global meat cycle
today—and, you know, this is a personal view; I’m not saying this as
chairman of the IPCC. Since you asked me a personal question, I’m
giving you a personal answer. You cut a number of forests in several
parts of the world to create pastureland. Then you feed animals with a
lot of food grains, which incidentally are produced with the use of
fertilizers and chemicals. Then, when you kill these animals or birds
or whatever, they have to be refrigerated. They often have to be
transported long distances under refrigeration. And then wholesale
stocks of these are kept under refrigeration. Retail stores keep them
under refrigeration. Our refrigerators have large freezers, where—and
all of this uses a lot of energy, most of it dependent on fossil
fuels.

AMY GOODMAN: The questioning of global warming, what is the role of
multinational corporations like oil companies? These are now—even in
this time of recession, even the U.S.-based companies are making more
money now than they’ve ever made in history.

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: Well, I would like to see them invest some of
that money in research and development on renewables. I mean, if they
are energy companies and want to stay in business, then I think they
should read the writing on the wall and start diversifying. And, you
know, it’s not as though oil is going to go out of use. I mean, as
somebody says, the Stone Age didn’t end because there were no stones
in the world. The fact is, oil will always have a use. Oil will always
have a price. It can be used for a variety of reasons. But I think if
they are energy companies, and if there are technologies that could
replace oil on an economically viable basis, I would expect these
companies to use their resources, their expertise, their
organizational skills, to bring about a transition that would actually
help humanity in the years ahead.

AMY GOODMAN: Two last questions. 2020, that’s the buzzword here:
"We’ll start to reduce emissions in 2020." We’re in 2011 right now.
How serious is that?

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: Well, I don’t know. As far as I’m concerned,
the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report had clearly brought out that if we
want to limit to temperature increase to two degrees or thereabouts,
two to 2.4 degrees Celsius, and if we want to do it at least cost,
then emissions will have to peak no later than 2015. And we are now
talking about 2020. That means the world will incur a much larger
expense in reducing emissions. And in the meantime, we’ll also suffer
far more serious impacts of climate change. So, therefore, I
personally think if the world decides to do this, if the negotiators
over here determine that course of action, they should be aware of the
fact that that’s going to be a costly course of action. And that’s
something which science has brought out very clearly.

AMY GOODMAN: I know you have to go. Sixteen chief executives of U.S.
environmental groups wrote a letter to Hillary Clinton, the Secretary
of State, saying that the U.S., which originally seemed to be at the
forefront of dealing with climate change, now can be the—it now seems
to becoming the chief obstacle for taking greenhouse gas emissions
seriously. What does this mean when you have the most powerful country
in the world talking about 2020? They’re particularly criticizing them
for not talking about mandatory regulations around emissions and for
not seriously helping to fund the global—the Green Climate Fund, to
the tune of, what, $100 billion each year, starting in 2020.

DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: So they are basically asking the U.S. to take a
much stronger leadership position. Is that what it is? Well, I would
say, those 16 CEOs deserve my salute, and I would say, "God bless
them."

AMY GOODMAN: In an update to an earlier story, it turns out Republican
Senator James Inhofe is not in attendance at the climate change
conference in person. Instead, while people said he was here, he sent
a video message. So far, no members of the U.S. Congress have attended
the climate talks here in Durban, South Africa.
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett