'We are likely to see growing water scarcity'

Climate change: 'We are likely to see growing water scarcity'

June 06, 2007

How will climate change transform India? What should Indians do in our everyday lives to lessen the impact of global warming?

Rediff.com's Nikhil Lakshman asked Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, what India and Indians need to do to counter the terrors of global warming. The third in a five-part series of interviews:

Part 1 of the Interview: 'Climate change reports have not been diluted'
A lot of young people seem to be absolutely aghast at the consequences of global warming. Would you outline for them the immediate and long-term implications of climate change?
Well, all these have been documented in the report itself and I would encourage people who have a concern to read the report in detail. You know the issues that we need to consider are the fact that today you have enough observed evidence to show that the climate is changing. We also have enough observed evidence to show that the bulk of this change is taking place because of human activity.

We can separate out very neatly those effects which are caused by nature -- and these could be sunspots, these could be volcanic activity -- and those activities which are human induced. So we can say now on the basis of scientific research and very sophisticated modeling activities exactly what the separation between these two drivers is. I think that's very, very clear.

We now find that there is more than a 90% chance that all the warming that has taken place in recent decades is the result of human action.

We have also made projections for the future, which show, for instance, there will be major precipitation changes. We also know that there will be major temperature increases and the impacts are not going to be uniform. There are some countries that are far more vulnerable than others, some regions where the impacts will be quite severe.

In the case of, say, the Indian subcontinent, we certainly are likely to see more extreme precipitation events. We are likely to see growing water scarcity. We know our glaciers are melting very rapidly. And that's likely to cause very serious problems at least for the northern part of the subcontinent.
Part 2 of the Interview: Climate Change: 'The science is first rate'
Will the Himalayan glaciers truly melt?

Look at the rate at which the glaciers are melting. There is enough documentary evidence, there's visible evidence. You don't even have to measure anything. You can see it taking place.
Sea-level rise is a reality and you know we need to be concerned about it. We have a large coastline. Agriculture is likely to be affected adversely.

So you know these are issues that are clearly going to have major implications for human activity across the globe and it is important for people, particularly those who are in the younger age group, to worry about some of these issues and start taking both adaptation measures as well as ensure that on a global basis, we can bring about effective mitigation of emissions of these gases.

So is this change universal?

Well, a good part of it really is because even if we had stabilised our emissions during the year 2000, climate change would continue for several decades. As a matter of fact, sea level rise, which really has the longest time scale, will continue for centuries. So we have to adapt while we may bring about action to mitigate emissions.

But you think we need to adapt to climate change as well as mitigate its consequences?
Absolutely. You need to do both. One or the other will not work. You need both.
What adaptation can we do in India?

Water management. We need to manage our water resources far more efficiently. Make sure that every drop of water, at least in economic activities, is used effectively.

I mean simple things like the kinds of toilets that we have over here, they are terribly inefficient in the use of water. Everywhere else in the world they have come up with designs that are far more efficient. With urbanisation and the demand for water growing in urban areas, these are things that are going to be critical.

In agriculture, we waste enormous amount of water, in industries we need to recycle water. There is a lot that can be done in the case of agriculture.

We need to come up with very location-specific solutions and how we may be able to counter the impact of climate change. Otherwise, agricultural yields will decline.
What about the energy scenario?

Well, there you really need global responses and global solutions. India is a very small part of the emissions problem. Even though our share is growing, it's still very, very small. I think action has to be taken first by the developed countries and I think that's absolutely critical. It is essential.

The European Union is trying to tackle climate change. The Bush administration, for long averse to taking any action, has finally stirred. What about India?
The government has to take the lead. We have to come up with a game plan, we have to come with a roadmap about what we need to do about climate change and, of course, predominantly it has to be an adaptation-based plan of action.

The number of cars that are on the roads is ridiculous. We have to think of a totally different plan of transport as opposed to what has been followed in the developed countries. It doesn't suit our conditions, locally or globally. So you know these are things that have to be thought through and you know we have to articulate them.

Has the government consulted you on what needs to done? The finance minister mentioned the constitution of an expert committee on climate change in his Budget speech. It has been a couple of months since and there has been no movement.

I haven't heard anything but you know on a regular basis we (The Energy Research Institute of which Dr Pachauri is the director-general) work very closely with the ministry of environment. We provide them regular inputs in the negotiations, in defining their own position as far as climate change is concerned. We have a good relationship in terms of providing advice and analytical inputs to the government.

online available at- http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jun/06inter.htm

'Climate change reports not diluted'

'Climate change reports not diluted'

June 04, 2007

Not too many Indians are aware that at the heart of the global debate on climate change is an Indian. Dr Rajendra Kumar Pachauri is chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established by the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environment Programme, to investigate global warming and its consequences for Earth.

This year's IPCC reports have startled world leaders out of denial mode. No longer, it appears, can climate change be dismissed by policy-makers as a monstrous crank theory conceived by a renegade scientific community.

At this week's G-8 summit in Germany, climate change and the threat it poses to the future of humanity will be one of the main subjects of discussion, treated almost on par with that other horrific challenge to the way we live, terrorism.

In an extensive interview to rediff.com's Nikhil Lakshman, Dr Pachauri -- who heads the The Energy and Resources Institute in New Delhi and is arguably India's leading enviromental scientist -- discusses the IPCC reports and what we ordinary folk need to do to preserve our planet from the dangers of global warming. A week-long series:

Are you satisfied that this year's IPCC reports have adequately conveyed the consequences and dangers of climate change?

I think they have because there has been an enormous amount of interest on the part of the media, and as a result I am sure our message and the essential findings of the reports have been conveyed widely across the world.

I feel generally satisfied but then this is only the start of a process which has to continue because let us face it, people have very short memories and right now, of course, the reports may create a bit of a stir. But over time people will forget about it and it will be business as usual. We have to think of some means by which one can keep reinforcing the message effectively.

Would you have been happier if the reports had been presented in the form they had been drafted by the scientists, because if you look at the American newspapers, for instance, there has been a lot of criticism about the way some countries watered down the conclusions?

No, I don't think they watered it down. The whole process of the IPCC is such that the summary for policy-makers is approved literally word by word by the governments. They (the government) have the immediate right to ask questions about every finding, every single piece of assessment that is contained in the reports.

The authors (of the reports) are present there and they have to answer those questions. They have to provide references, they have to provide a basis for why a particular conclusion has been arrived at. Often, to be quite honest, the kinds of suggestions that you get from the government representatives actually improves the quality of the reports.

So what we are really getting is a reality check on the part of the people who are involved in policies. And there are two benefits, one which I said you provide something in the report that is totally defensible and if it is not defensible then the authors decide to drop it. Secondly, I think what happens as a result is that you get a buy-in from the governments.

Once a government has approved a report then they necessarily have to accept ownership of it. Therefore, when it comes to any follow-up, no government can deny accepting the IPCC report. Because acceptance has been ensured through the process. So I don't think it (the IPCC reports) were watered down. Yes, there are always some modifications, and that is why we discuss these things for a period of four days or longer, which happened in this case.

Please describe to us the days leading to the presentation of the reports and the all-night discussions between the scientists and the policy-makers and your role in bringing about a satisfying conclusion.

Basically, you go through every sentence, line by line, you go through every word literally and as we go around the text, then people are free to discuss, debate, question what is there in the draft report. Then you sort of change it online if there is a need to do so. And since it is line by line you are talking about a 20, 21 page report.

Obviously, it takes all of four days and in this case it took longer because we worked right through the night. There were a few tricky issues and there you run into differences of opinion.

You then set up what is known as a contact group and that contact group meets outside sessions. And people who have very strong views about a particular issue participate in this contact group and we try to come up with any resolutions of any differences that arise.

How many countries were involved in this?
I think in Brussels, we had 114 countries.

And how many scientists?

There were the coordinating lead authors. I would say maybe 20, 25 which is the representative of the total number of scoentists who participated in the report.

And the policy-makers who took part in these discussions were also well informed individuals?
Oh yes! Because you know we go through a process of reviews of the draft. The drafts are sent out to governments and to experts for their review. And these are governments who have read the drafts, send in their comments and are totally familiar with the text. So essentially they are people who know what they are talking about.

So you wouldn't agree with the criticism that countries like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United States actually diluted the report?

I wouldn't want to name any countries but you know there are always some countries are always a little more active than others. I don't think there has been any case, so I wouldn't use the word 'dilution'.

If you can't really find cogent reasons for defending what you have said, then clearly you just have to drop it. But what I'd like to say is that there has been no material change or alteration in the report as such. There might be some minor things that have changed but the basic thrust of the report has remained just as it was.
I read that some scientists are so displeased

with the process that they have vowed not to be involved in IPCC discussions again.

I said elsewhere -- it was reported also -- that after you have a 24-hour session literally, and at the end of it, somebody asks me, "Would you work for the IPCC again?" my instinct would be to say, "To hell with it! I am not interested." It is strenuous, it is a tough process and obviously people do get flustered, they lose their cool, they lose their tempers so if somebody walks out and says that they'll never work for the IPCC again, it really doesn't mean very much, it doesn't amount to anything.

In some sense you can say it's a lover's tiff, nothing more than that.
As chairman of the IPCC, what is your role?

The co-chairs of the working groups essentially run the meetings. I am there only to facilitate things if we run into any problems, if we run into any difficulties. I am there to understand what kind of roadblocks are coming in the way and how one might be able to remove them.

The overall IPCC meeting I chair myself. When the synthesis report is presented, which will be in November, I would chair that meeting so I will be at the receiving end.

With the working group report, it is the co-chairs of the working group who are the ones responsible for producing that report so they are the best ones to handle that session and defend everything as far as that report is concerned.

So, you are essentially a builder of consensus?

I am there to see that the process moves along established lines and if we run into any problems I'd like to see that we sort out those problems.

online available at- http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jun/04inter.htm