Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Pachauri in hot water

Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the International Panel on Climate Change or the IPCC is presiding over some of the toughest scandals to hit climate change and global warming research.

First, came ClimateGate. Hackers hacked into email servers of the Cliamte Research Unit (CRU) of the IPCC and got hold of several Megs of email communications between scientists. When the contents of these emails were examined, it came to light that, among other serious issues, some of the temperature measurements that were used as major indicators in the claims of Phil Jones, a climate researcher with the University of East Anglia, that global warming was real, were seriously flawed, i.e. fudged.

Next, came Glacier Gate, in which a benchmark study on glacier melting in 2007 conducted by the The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) and whose director is Mr. Pachauri, that predicted that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, was found to be seriously "flawed" as well.

Most recently, came Amazon Gate, in which new evidence was discovered that the IPCC's claim that large portions of the Amazon rain forests are in serious trouble because of global warming was also based on faulty and non-peer reviewed information.

The damage done by these scandals has already discredited the world's leading climate research organization and by extension, the whole notion that climate change and global warming is real and is happening. That last effect is the one that is the most disturbing, forcing ordinary people to lose faith in the scientific work behind climate change and allowing climate change skeptics to regain their foothold in the debate on whether global warming is real or not. As discussed in the above piece by Christopher Booker, the notion that IPCC is and has been conducting global warming research impartially is probably mistaken as well.

Mr. Pachauri is definitely in the hot seat. Calls for him to take responsibilities for the scandals and resign as chair of the IPCC are growing. And while he has been resisting these calls for now, he may not be able to do so for too long. But his options if he were to leave the IPCC are also somewhat limited given that the government of India is also not all that predisposed towards him as they may have been before - especially after that faulty Himalayan glacier melting report.

There's more. In early 2008 he greeted the launching in India of Tata Motors' low cost passenger car called the Nano, with a statement that the launch of the car was giving him nightmares, filled with images of Indian roads clogged with these little pieces of metal and polluting the world to kingdom come. This disregards the benefits of the Nano (low cost vehicle that makes traveling for poor families a lot more safer than is currently possible for them while positioned precariously on a 2 wheeler in both rain or sun, very low emissions compared to gas guzzlers) and the production and distribution limitations on that scenario ever becoming possible. Coming from a person of Indian origin, these comments were certainly perplexing to say the least. Or perhaps he said those things to stay on the good side of the environmentalists and the green lobby.

Whatever. Mr. Pachauri is morally responsible for the scandals even if he does not have a direct contribution to the faulty claims and reports issued by the IPCC. The damage done to the credibility of climate studies is going to be very, very hard to repair.

But, if the IPCC is itself not exactly committed to serious, impartial research and is only interested in pursuing its own agenda (however well-intentioned) then it probably does not matter who becomes the new chair after Pachauri.

Tuesday, February 09, 2010

The Good, The Bad and The Sulky

Five Rupees has a very interesting discussion between three political science PhD candidates on the Indo-Pak issue in the backdrop of the Indian side recently proposing to renew talks with Pakistan. The talks had been halted rather abruptly after the terror attacks on Mumbai on 26th November, 2008 and India since then had been understandably sulking about it. It's been over a year though since that horrific incident and a lot has happened since, not least of which is the rapid decline in the internal security situation in Pakistan.

The discussion is enlightening in many ways as it touches upon several topics of relevance for people in that region (and outside as well). Topics include nuclear deterrence, Pakistan's strategy of strategic depth against India by its involvement in internal Afghan politics, the Indian reasons for coming to the table for talks, the water dispute between the two countries and of course Kashmir.

With regards to the talks, it seems that one of the main reasons for India initiating the new rounds of talk is its perceived weakness in the Af-Pak region. India has seldom wielded real influence in Afghanistan except for its support to the Northern Alliance during and after the Taliban rule. But what little influence it had just suffered a still larger blow with the powers-that-be in the region, i.e. US, UK, Canada and Pakistan, having recently consciously chosen to sideline Indian concerns on Afghanistan. This despite India having invested billions into redevelopment efforts in Afghanistan since the dismantling of the Taliban regime. The US of course wants to assuage the concerns of the Pakistanis so that they can focus on going after the extremists in their midst and worry less about encirclement by India.

But the Indians seem particularly alarmed that everyone (except India) seems to be very inclined to start talks of some sort with the "good Taliban" in the Af-Pak region to solve the region's problems. The Indians insist that there is no such thing as good Taliban - a view expressed by Indian foreign minister S M Krishna recently. Of course, Krisha was forced to backtrack somewhat on those comments and suggest some flexibility on the issue because its stand has fallen on deaf ears, with the powers-that-be only intent on offering whatever confidence builders are desired by Pakistan for now.

It does seem that the security situation in the western part of the sub-continent has changed little since the Mumbai terror attacks. India's standing has not enhanced much and for the moment at least, despite its recent warming to and alignment with the United States. While the internal terror threat has been tackled with a lot of vigor, the external threat to India primarily in the form of anti-India extremists residing in Pakistan still exist largely untouched by the govt. of Pakistan and are not the focus of US action in the region. This could definitely be perceived as a failure of Indian foreign policy in the region.

There seems to be little option for the Indians than seeking the help of the nascent Pak civilian government in reducing that external threat, even as the Pak govt. once again tries to battle on many fronts. As in the past, the perception remains that it is still the Pak Army and its intelligence agencies who call the actual shots. In that context does it make sense for the Indians to talk to the civilian government in Pakistan?

It does seem as if its just the start of a new cycle of "Talks - catastrophic security event - Confrontation and No Talks" a sentiment expressed by Five Rupees as well. Any bets on the breaking of that cycle this time around?