ZAKARIA: There are still people who say that the science on global warming is still unclear. How do you react to that kind of talk? PACHAURI: Well, the calculations are so simple that even a high school kid can do them. The 20th century sea level rise was about 17 centimeters. Our predictions for the end of this century are 18 to 59 centimeters. So even if we end up somewhere in the middle, we have a pretty serious crisis on our hands. The fact that there are storms and coastal flooding even now means there’s going to be major devastation. The ocean takes a long time to mix; thus far the warming has been essentially in the upper layers. It’s now gone down in several places to about 3,000 meters. In a couple of decades or three decades, the warming will be even more serious.
What’s the cost involved in doing something about this – is it too great? We have completely debunked this fallacy. If you want to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases at the level that will limit temperature increases to 2 degrees to 2.4 degrees centigrade, the cost to the global economy in 2030 will be less than 3 percent. Now, that really means that the level of prosperity that we are going to reach in 2030 may, at best, be postponed by 8 or 9 months. That’s certainly not a high price to pay. If you’re going to translate this into annual cost, it’s only 0.12 percent of the GDP. Various things that can be done with existing technologies—we don’t even need any miracles by which you come up with new technologies. The technologies are all there. You can see them in operation in Japan, you can see them in operation in Germany, but there are some economies that have not used them at all.
What about the issue of coal? At the end of the day, the single largest contributor to CO2 in the world is coal and it’s cheap and plentiful. As far as coal is concerned, we really need technological innovation. There are things like gasification of coal that could improve the efficiency of the whole society. And, as you know, even the U.S. is now spending money on this technology that will essentially allow capture of CO2 and storage. I think what we really need much more is expenditure on [research and development]. What’s happened, unfortunately, since 1985 when oil prices crashed, R & D expenditure on alternatives also crashed correspondingly. I suppose the private sector will invest in these things if you have a price on carbon. In our findings, we have clearly highlighted the importance of keeping a price on carbon. If one were to do that, then you’d see the world moving towards a low carbon economy without any disruptions in the economic system.
Do you think that if you had a carbon tax, the West would need to subsidize clean coal or alternative energies in places like China? I think internationally you need a liberal facilitating arrangement because in the Framework Convention on Climate Change there is a clause about common but differentiated responsibility and there are also provisions for financial and technology transfers from north to south. Unfortunately, the world has done very little with these provisions. So I think that if there was a means by which you could facilitate a low carbon future in China and India, you’ll get desirable results. That hasn’t happened so far, unfortunately.
The United States is the largest consumer of coal, but there’ll be 650 coal-fired plants built between now and 2012 in China and the emissions of those will be quite substantial. I think there are two aspects to think about. Firstly, in per capita terms, India and China are way below the U.S. and North America. But a quite apart from that, I believe that China and India have to chart a new path. The developed country experience has proved disastrous for variety of other reasons—energy security for one thing, local pollution another. But I think in both countries, there is now a serious debate—in India I can see it for sure because the prime minister is quite concerned about this issue. He set up the advisory council on climate change. Similarly in China, there’s a China council for international cooperation on the environment and development, of which I’m a member. There’s now a serious effort to look at a low carbon economy in China.
But they are not talking about sacrificing growth. They are finding that the impacts of climate change are pretty serious for China. It’s affected their agriculture, it’s affected their precipitation levels—floods, droughts, a whole range of other impacts are taking place. They also realize for reasons of energy security they cannot continue on this path. I’m not saying that things will change overnight. There is a lot of tension, to be quite honest, between different departments in the government of China. There is a serious debate going on right now, which I think will lead in the right direction but will take time. In India, the economy can change much faster.
But in the short term what can you do to avoid reliance on fossil fuels there? There’s a lot we can do. We have to bring about improvements even in things like light bulbs, refrigerators and other appliances. In the case of buildings, there are new codes being developed, and new regulatory measures by which a shopping mall that comes up will have to be far more energy-efficient than a corresponding one in North America. In the transport sector, I think we need some major change. To be quite honest, I don’t see any sign of that change yet but that will have to happen because they’re going crazy with the increase in the motor vehicle fleet. We also need much greater investment in public transport, both within the cities as well as into cities. The railway system really needs major application, and the sooner the better.
And what about the United States—do you feel this administration is moving forward, or do you feel it is still a laggard? No, I would say there’s clearly a very detectable shift on the part of this administration. If one looks at their statements, one wonders—imagine two years ago they would be saying the kinds of things they’re saying today. Irrespective who’s in the White House, I think the next administration will have to be far more proactive on climate change than we have seen so far.
How important do you think adaptation is—recognizing these changes are afoot and trying to mitigate them? When one talks about adaptation, one talks about accepting the reality of these impacts and putting in place technological and policy measures by which we’re able to manage the problem. That’s absolutely essential. The fact that the Nobel Prize committee has awarded this prize to the IPCC for peace is a clear recognition of that if we allow things to run out of hand it can lead to conflict. Where you have water scarcity, you obviously have conflict. Where you have floods and droughts, obviously there will be hardship and that can lead to conflict. If the sea level rises and people are displaced they will over-run political boundaries and that will lead to conflict. We have to adapt to these impacts—even if we are to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases today, the impacts of climate change will continue for several decades. So we have no escape from some of these impacts, and we’d better learn to live with them and that’s what adaptation is all about.
At the end of the day, are you optimistic or are you very, very worried? Well, I’m very optimistic because the extent of awareness has increased over the last eight or nine months—ever since our reports started coming out. This gives me hope that maybe the tide is turning. The U.N. secretary-general organized a high-level meeting on the 24th of September. I had the privilege of addressing in the opening session and there were 80 heads of state and heads of government who sat there and talked about climate change for one full day. This has never happened before and barring one guy, Vaclav Klaus from the Czech Republic, everybody said the science is settled let’s get down to action, let’s not be late. So this gives me some basis for optimism, maybe things are moving now.
