The IPCC, Scientific Advice and Advocacy

July 9th, 2008

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

For some time the leadership of the IPCC have sought to use the institution’s authority to promote a specific political agenda in the climate debate. The comments made yesterday by Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, place the organization in opposition to the G8 leaders position on climate change:

RK Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on Tuesday slammed developed countries for asking India and China to cut greenhouse gas emissions while they themselves had not taken strong steps to cut down pollution.

“India can not be held for any emission control. They (developed countries) should get off the back of India and China,” Pachauri told reporters here.

“We are an expanding economy. How can we levy a cap when millions are living with deprivation? To impose any cap (on India) at a time when others (industrialised countries) are saying that they will reach the 1990 level of emission by 2025 is hazardous,” Pachauri said.

He said countries like the US and Canada should accept their responsibilities and show leadership in reducing green house gases like carbon dioxide and methane.

Pachauri said millions of Indian do not have access to electricity and their per capita income is much less. At this point, you cannot ask a country to “stop developing”.

Who does Dr. Pachauri speak for as head of the “policy neutral” IPCC?

It is as if the head of the CIA (or any other intelligence agency) decided to publicly criticize the government of Iran (or other country). Such behavior would seriously call into question the ability of the intelligence agency to perform its duties, which depend upon an ability to leave advocacy to other agencies. The United States has a Department of State responsible for international relations. The CIA collects intelligence in support of decision makers. These agencies have different roles in the policy process — hoenst broker and issue advocate.

The IPCC seems to want to both gather intelligence and decide what to do based on that intelligence. This is not a recipe for effective expert advice. Leaders in many areas would not stand for this conflation of advice and advocacy, so why does it continue to occur in the climate arena with little comment?

3 Responses to “The IPCC, Scientific Advice and Advocacy”

    1
  1. Counter Revolutionary Says:

    Roger, how much difference is there between Rajendra Pachauri, and James Hansen? The judgment of each, it seems to me, can not be trusted.

    BTW, thanks. I was unaware of the IPCC hat that Pachauri wore in the early releases of his comments.

    CoRev, Editor
    http://globalwarmingclearinghouse.blogspot.com

  2. 2
  3. Jon Says:

    Over six years ago, when Bob Watson was ousted at Exxon’s recommendation and Bush backed Pachauri, the motivation was clear.

    Pachauri was an outspoken critic of the United States, and called on global boycotts of American goods due to our status as the largest emitter. He was adamant before the Bush administration backed him that the industrialized world make binding commitments while India and China should be exempt. This was and is the opposite of US policy. It is something that the US would never agree to, which is precisely why the Bush administration fought to install him as chair. It was a de facto delaying strategy.

    Pachauri was selected precisely because he could be counted on to pull this kind of crap and provide Bush with excuses to delay binding emissions targets. This was just one of many reasons why people protested his sharing in the Nobel prize instead of Watson.

    Thanks for asking about this by the way. It had sort of disappeared from public consciousness.

  4. 3
  5. Sylvain Says:

    Dr Pachauri’s comment seems to be speaking more for indian economist than for the IPCC.

    In his quality has the head of the IPCC, he seems to favor world climate policy that give India advantages over developed countries, this is at odd with the IPCC position that CO2 is the cause of all the problem on earth and that mitigation is the only solution to avoid catastrophe.

    This shows that the climate change crisis is seen by many politician as a way gather advantages over other countries. This is why nothing is achieved world wide.

    I personally don’t buy the hype and believe that adaption is more important than mitigation.