India Supports a Toothless IPCC
The less credibility the climate body has, the less it can do to block
vital economic development

By BARUN MITRA

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed support for the United
Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its leader,
Rajendra Pachauri, at a local energy conference in New Delhi Friday.
The move has surprised many observers, but it may prove to be
politically astute.

The IPCC's credibility is in tatters. From climategate to glaciergate,
Amazongate, natural-disaster gate, and now Chinagate, the revelations
of bad science keep coming. Given all that, plus the much-publicized
flap between Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh and Mr. Pachauri over
the science behind "melting" Himalayan glaciers weeks before the
Copenhagen climate summit in December, superficially one might have
expected the Indian government to jettison Mr. Pachauri as soon as
possible.

But Delhi isn't just offering him and the organization rhetorical
backing. At Friday's annual flagship event of the Energy and Resources
Institute—which Mr. Pachauri has headed for almost 30 years—the prime
minister offered to provide technical assistance through a newly
established glacier research center. The government has also formed a
network of scientific institutions to develop domestic science and
research capacities on climate issues.

The explanation for this support is simple: It is in the Indian
government's interest to perpetuate a weak IPCC and a toothless Mr.
Pachauri at its helm. Given the recent scandals, the IPCC is hardly in
a position to lobby India for carbon concessions. No one from the IPCC
can again cavalierly dismiss their critics as promoting "voodoo"
science or "vested interests," as was Mr. Pachauri's wont. By offering
scientific support to the IPCC, the Indian government is actually
confirming its lack of confidence in the U.N. body's scientific
credentials.

Mr. Pachauri is now in his second term as the head of IPCC. He is not
a climate scientist—or indeed a scientist at all. He is an able
science administrator who built his institute from scratch.
Influential governments in the rich world probably accepted Mr.
Pachauri not just for his redoubtable skill in institution-building,
but also in the hope that by placing an Indian like him at the head of
IPCC, he might be able to influence Indian policy.

That's important because after all, if countries like China and India
do not subscribe to any commitment to reducing emissions, developed
countries' best efforts will not have any significant impact. Having
bought the idea of man-made global warming, rich countries had to try
and ensure that developing countries fell in line.

But in democratic India no leader can afford to ignore the
developmental aspirations of the people. Even if some Indian elites
want to sell the future of the country by agreeing to some form of
restrictions on energy usage—and thus on economic growth—in the
fiercely competitive world of Indian politics they stand no chance.

The IPCC was created as a way to make the world, particularly the
poor, fall in line and support expensive climate-change initiatives by
overwhelming them with the apparent authority of the world's leading
technical body on the subject, backed by a supposed scientific
consensus. This attempt was doomed to fail, because scientific inquiry
does not respect consensus, and orthodoxy is anathema to scientific
progress.

There is some poetic justice in this whole drama. Countries like India
that were always apprehensive of institutions like the IPCC now prefer
to keep it twisting in the wind. The rich countries that gave birth to
the idea of the IPCC cannot afford to disown it without exposing their
own underlying design. They could try to replace its head, in the hope
that the new face might be able to rebuild the credibility of the
institution. But having tasted blood, there is no reason why India and
China should let the current advantage pass so easily.

The IPCC has been checkmated, as have so many other U.N. institutions
before it. This is the inevitable consequence of the desire for global
government under the misguided belief that ordinary people do not know
what is in their own interest. With the deepening of democratic
ideals, people power can no longer be overturned so easily. The
failure of the IPCC shows that sovereignty still lies with the people,
not with the aspirants for global government.

Mr. Mitra is director of the Liberty Institute, an independent think
tank in New Delhi.

Just A Guy wrote:

India Supports a Toothless IPCC
[snip]

They see a lot of themselves in it. One imagines India would
vigorously support a toiletless IPCC.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm