'Environmental issues must become part of our political agenda'

As environmental issues get set to take the centrestage at the forthcoming Earth Summit, scheduled for August 26 in Johannesburg, there is no other person in the country who is better equipped to talk about the climate change and global warming issues than Dr R K Pachauri, Director-General of TERI, and the first representative of an industrialising country to be elected as the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Dr Pachauri, who is a Ph.D. in industrial engineering as well as in economics, was awarded the Padma Bhushan in January, 2001, for his outstanding contribution in the field of energy and environment. Due to his vast knowledge and experience, he has served as a member of various international and national committees and boards, including the World Energy Council and the National Environmental Council of the Government of India. In an e-mail interview with Shebonti Ray Dadwal of The Financial Express, Dr Pachauri talks about various issues related to environment and climate change, and their impact on industrialing countries like India. The Bush administration left the Kyoto regime on grounds that it disagreed with the stand that only the developed countries should contribute to emission cuts for the time being. Under these circumstances, isn?t there a discrepancy in the Bush regime?s support for you, a representative from an industrialising country, for the top job at IPCC? IPCC is a scientific body, the sole purpose of which is to carry out an objective and unbiased assessment of all aspects of climate change. It has no role in either supporting or rejecting the Kyoto Protocol. The maximum the council can do with respect to the Kyoto regime is to assess what impact it can have on the world?s climate system. All Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change member-countries or those who provide financial support know that IPCC is not in any way responsible for climate change policies or actions. I am sure the declaration of support that the US made in favour of my candidature as the IPCC chairman reflected some degree of confidence that I would respect the charter of the council and carry out its work effectively. I see no contradiction between the US support for me and its rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. Incidentally, various statements that I have read from US officials express great support for research on the scientific aspects of climate change. I hope this would translate into continuing support for the council. You are a director with Indian Oil Corporation. Do you see the domestic oil companies contributing to environmental issues like their overseas counterparts, say Shell and ExxonMobil? I believe that with greater decontrol of the oil industry and competition between companies, they would pay greater attention to the environmental issues. Essentially, what has happened with companies like Shell and BP is that firstly, they see future markets for green energy and, therefore, wish to place themselves in a position to make the best use of that opportunity as early as possible. Also, as far as the current environmental issues are concerned, the fact that some of the oil majors show growing responsibility towards the environment arises from the fact that customers and the public at large demand such behaviour on the part of the industry. Once we have greater competition here, similar considerations and factors will influence decisions by our oil companies as well. Global warming and climate change issues are global concerns. Yet, taking cue from the US, many developed countries have opted out of the Kyoto Protocol, deeming it unfair. How do you plan to deal with the divide that has cropped up between the industrialised and industrialising countries? As far as Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is concerned, it has no role in the negotiations between the developed and developing countries or actions for bringing down greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions. However, the assessment that IPCC carries out can provide a powerful basis for actions and decisions that are taken by different group of countries. For instance, if we carry out an assessment of future actions related to climate change, it may be possible to show the huge cost in terms of impacts that the developing countries would have to bear as a result of climate change. Assigning appropriate economic values to these impacts would arm the Third World with better scientific information on what the cost of action or inaction by the global community would mean. I also believe civil society in the developed countries will get more demanding with their governments on actions that are required to take care of this extremely serous global problem. The divide between different group of countries can be bridged not merely through negotiations between their governments but also by moral and ethical pressure that the civil society could bring to bear on them in this direction. What, in your mind, is the biggest challenge with regard to environmental problems? How do you plan to motivate people in the developed world to adopt the means prescribed by the council to alleviate the effects of global warming? I think the biggest challenge on environmental problems, in general, is the absence of knowledge and understanding on the economic and social impacts of these issues. In this regard, the impacts of climate change will have to be understood by the developing as well as the developed societies. There are likely to be growing problems in different parts of the world resulting from sea-level rise, unfavourable impacts on agriculture, growing scarcity of water, increasing frequency and extent of droughts and floods, and, of course, higher temperatures, which would certainly have some effect on productivity in many economic activities. If the Caribbean Islands and the US East Coast, for instance, suffer from sea-level rise, this would have serious economic and social consequences for that country. We need to assess these consequences not merely in scientific but in economic and social terms as well. Once the civil societies in different countries understand the nature and the seriousness of the problem, governments will have to act whether they are democratically elected or otherwise. For instance, the governor of California, US, has recently signed legislation which would cut GHGs by requiring vehicles to reduce tail-pipe emissions of GHGs, by 2009. This would have profound implications for automobile design and manufacture and, in fact, the entire transport sector in California. In democratic societies, legislative actions and initiatives do not necessarily have to start at the top. They could be the result of movements that have a bottom upwards force. That is how we can motivate people and governments to act. As the IPCC chairman what will be your agenda at the Johannesburg summit, given that preliminary rounds failed to set an agenda? IPCC has no formal role at the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, because climate change is not directly included in the summit agenda. It may, of course, come up at discussions related to other subjects such as energy and transport, which are largely responsible for a large part of GHG emissions. As the chairman, I do intend to participate in several events being organised in Johannesburg and IPCC itself will have a presence there, particularly to disseminate information on climate change. Many people feel that the IPCC agenda is difficult for laymen to understand. In the Third World, including India, getting two square meals a day is a struggle. How do you plan to motivate these people with lofty ideals of leaving behind a better planet than the one they inherited? It is true that in countries like India getting two square meals a day is a struggle for many people. Unfortunately, this struggle will get much worse with the impacts of climate change, including the possibility of growing water scarcity, higher temperatures, and various unfavourable impacts on agriculture. It is the poor who would be the greatest sufferers. There is nothing lofty about a better and healthier planet because the high and mighty have the resources to meet adverse conditions arising from environmental damage and degradation. It is the poor who would be left deprived. I believe that there is a need to convert the message of IPCC and its scientific work into simple understanding of how the lives of the poor will be affected with climate change. If we can do this effectively, then the agenda of reducing GHG emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change would become the agenda of the people. This is an important challenge not only to the scientific communities across the world but to all rational human beings. Looking specifically at India, Union power minister Suresh Prabhu has said he plans to augment generation by increasing the share of nuclear and renewable energy sources up to 20 per cent each over the next 20 years. Being a member of the PM?s economic council, do you see this as a realistic target, given the fact that both are more expensive than primary fuels? I believe in the next 20 years it would be entirely feasible to meet 20 per cent of the country?s energy demand through non-fossil fuel-based options. Even today, we can do away with fossil fuels or electricity for heating water in our homes, hotels, and other commercial establishments. Solar heating is even today a totally viable option in economic terms. A large part of rural India, which is supplied with electricity from the grid today, could switch over to decentralised forms of renewable energy that actually reduce cost. In many areas, the actual cost of energy supplies is not realised and is well in excess of tariffs that are charged. We must also remember that technology is evolving very rapidly, and certainly in 20 years many more financially attractive options would be available for using non-fossil fuel-based energy. Both India and China have huge coal reserves. China has opted to use technology instead of alternative fuels to fight carbon emissions from coal burning. Do you think India should follow the Western path of replacing traditional fuels with more environment-friendly ones or should it emulate China and utilise indigenous resources? I think, the choice of fuels has to be dictated by economic viability and practical feasibility. Given the harmful local environmental impacts of energy use of various kinds, there is a strong case for adopting environmentally friendly fuels, because the cost of various forms of fuel use can be very high in terms of health and other impacts. For instance, coal could be used with superior technologies that minimise environmental effects. Diesel can be used with very low sulphur content to provide substantial environmental gains and, of course, the efficient use of energy for a large oil-importing country like India is to our advantage in various ways. Cleaner fuels and efficient use of energy are in India?s interest not because other countries are following such a path, but because it is in India?s interest to do so. Many Indian cities top the list of ?most polluted cities of the world?. India is seen as one of the biggest future polluters. However, in India, it is politics that sets the agenda for policy, and despite ?the environment? being cited as an important concern, do you see our politicians implementing politically unpopular policies to mitigate the effects of climate change if required? I think our politicians will respect the power of the people if environmental issues become part of the political agenda. If you scrutinise the manifestoes of major political parties fighting elections in the recent past, there was no serious attention paid to environmental issues. If the voters start demanding more environmentally responsible policies, the politicians will find it necessary to pay attention to these issues. Our cities, our lakes and rivers as well as the entire countryside would then become cleaner. It is not merely a matter of cosmetics to create a clean and green India but something that is in our economic interest.