R K Pachauri
The Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki-moon, had stated that 2009 would be the year of climate change. It undoubtedly turned out to be so, even though the outcome of Copenhagen was somewhat of an anti-climax, it did produce an accord involving members of the new group called BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) and the United States. However, this is very far from a universally accepted agreement with legally binding conditions. Hence, it is obvious that if an agreement is reached in the next Conference of the Parties in Mexico, it would be 2010 that would really qualify as the year of climate change.
Much of the lack of progress in reaching a desirable agreement stems from inaction in the United States. Under the Bush administration, the US really did not have a forward looking climate policy, but even now there are a number of vested interests, essentially in the fossil fuel business, which see any agreement on climate change as a threat to their continuing prosperity.
The Centre for Public Integrity in the US has recently highlighted the fact that more than 770 companies and interest groups hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists to influence federal policies on climate change in the past year. That represented an increase of 300% in the number of lobbyists on climate change in just five years, implying that Washington, therefore, has more than four climate lobbyists for every member of Congress.
Climate skeptics and vested interests leave no stone unturned and are capable of using every dirty trick to discredit the science of climate change and the credibility of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), since this body has had substantial influence in shaping public opinion and spreading awareness on the scientific reality of climate change, particularly with the release of its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in 2007.
Some have apparently gone to the extent of hacking the private emails of scientists at the University of East Anglia in the UK who had exchanged communications with other scientists decrying some papers that they did not approve of and a particular journal called "Climate Research". Claims were put forward by the skeptics in the media that these led to biased assessment in the AR4.
In fact, the papers criticised in these stolen emails were actually discussed in detail in chapter 6 of the Working Group-I report, which forms part of the AR4. Similarly, articles from the journal 'Climate Research' have been cited 47 times in the same report. The transparent manner in which the IPCC functions with expert reviews of every draft at each stage, including reviews by governments leaves no room for any bias, deliberate or unintentional. Besides, the summary for policymakers of each report is approved word by word by all governments.
India is one of the countries that would be subjected to serious impacts of climate change, and with a population of around 1.2 billion, we have as much stake in stabilising the world's climate system and limiting temperature increase to an acceptable level as any other society. Or else, the impacts would prove very costly in human and economic terms.
Copenhagen certainly provides a framework and a basis for developing a legally binding agreement that can move the world forward not only in dealing with the challenge of climate change but the larger challenge of moving to a path of sustainable development. The next Delhi Sustainable Development Summit, scheduled for February 5-7, 2010, would be a platform attracting a number of world leaders from every walk of life to focus on a roadmap by which in December 2010 a legally binding agreement can be signed by all the countries in Mexico.
But, the fight to stabilise the earth's climate would have to deal with ignorance, selfish and narrow vested interest and the efforts of powerful lobbies. In the end, knowledge must inevitably win but delay in action could lead to growing impacts of climate change, which would have serious implications for India and other parts of the world.