A charged climate

He is the high priest of environmentalism in India. As head of TERI, he is arguably one of India?s foremost policy-makers in the environmental field. Today, in the running for chairmanship of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), R K Pachauri finds himself facing allegations that he is being backed by a powerful oil lobby in the US. Speaking to Lalita Panicker, he counters these charges and speaks of the lack of environmental awareness in India: How confident are you of winning this closely contested election? I have been nominated by the Indian government. I am already vice-president of the IPCC. The US has refused to support the present incumbent Robert Watson. I am quite confident. You have been dismissed as a weak candidate by your critics. They say that this is why the US is supporting you. The US is backing me because it does not want Watson there. But I see no reason why the developed world should monopolise this post. I have been quite critical of the Bush administration?s energy policies, so I am on the same side as Watson. But he first went around telling industry that I would be even worse than him for business. Now, he says I am a stooge of industry. Please note, the IPCC is a purely scientific body. It is not supposed to go into politics. Its reports are all scientific. Watson criticised the Bush administration. I would consider myself weak only if I don?t get the support of the scientific community. I have never been cowed down by anyone. What exactly has been Watson?s criticism of Bush? He has said that Bush has not done enough to ratify the Kyoto protocol. He has criticised the US administration?s position on climate change. I would not do that. If you want to keep the credibility of the IPCC, you have to steer clear of this sort of controversy. I want to do policy-relevant research, not policy- prescriptive research. Don?t you think that bodies like the IPCC have been reinventing the wheel for years, telling us what we already know? We don?t know enough. If, for example, global warming causes the sea level to rise, how will it affect Bangladesh? We have to assess such problems, study their impact. The other criticism against you is that you are an engineer and economist, unlike Watson, who is an atmospherics scientist. How valid is this? When you are cooking a meal, anyone can prepare the masalas. But if the masala maker actually cooks the meal, you are in trouble. Atmospherics is only a part of environmental management. You need to focus on energy choices, the kind of clean technologies that we need to employ, public administration, economics, impact on agriculture, ocean sciences, forest management, health, disease-carrying species. The field has been dominated by atmospherics people and other areas of crucial importance have been ignored. I am far better qualified than an atmospherics scientist to head this body. By the way, all the criticism against me is coming from atmospheric scientists. Do you think the US is playing a responsible role in these climate change meets and discussions? No, but the world is clear that countries have a common but differentiated responsibility in climate change. The US has to do more than India. What has been the reaction of the auto fuels industry to developments since Rio? The industry is a bit of a mixed bag really. Bill Ford of Ford Motor, for example, has said that his company has to change, become more environment-friendly if it does not want to go the way of the tobacco industry. BP and Shell are trying to change, but companies like Exxon are totally resistant to change. Civil society has to bestir itself more. What the IPCC must do is to disseminate all its findings more actively. The IPCC gets inputs from more than 1,000 scientists all over the world. These are top-class research findings, people must know about these. How much has changed owing to all the conferences after Rio? Has enough been done? In terms of action, not much has happened. But there has been a clear change in perception. There is a realisation that poverty is everyone?s problem. Lots of companies have become conscious of their responsibilities to society as a whole. Rio did this. But, no I am not happy with the action. Closer home, do you think the Supreme Court?s order on compressed natural gas (CNG) is doing more harm than good? Our views at TERI are different from those of the Supreme Court. We favour ultra low sulphur diesel (ULSD), the preferred option all over Europe. It is, in fact, cleaner than CNG. Then why is CNG being spoken of as the only option here? Well, some people got this bee in their bonnet. Over the last six to seven years, there have been so many new developments. After the Euro II engine and the advent of the particulate trap, ULSD has an edge over CNG. Surely all this is known, then why the preference for CNG? Well, many people acted on old information. They took a position and did not want to resile from it. All that mattered was ego. Some people, for example, said we were taking money from the Tatas. We have not got a penny, though the people who accuse us have cornered crores for themselves. With the push for CNG, certain bus and three-wheeler manufacturers are making a killing, charging much more than for diesel vehicles. We have been very incompetent in countering all this. Are you saying that one committee, the Bhure Lal committee, decided on such a momentous change on its own? Yes, the Supreme Court did not consult people like us on such a sophisticated decision. Only the opinion of one ramshackle committee was heeded as the fountainhead of wisdom. If the court decides that all citizens must only breathe air as pure as it is in the Himalayas, will the government pipe it down for them? Was a feasibility study done on CNG? What about safety standards? What can be done now so common people don?t suffer? Let the CNG buses run, but experts must come up with other solutions for the remaining buses and public transport. Will the metro help in Delhi? Is that the way to go? Yes, but it has come 20 years too late. You know, these are not matters for the courts to decide. No one should prescribe one or the other particular path.