Interview series

DSDS Home 

  Real video

To view Real media files you
would require Realplayer plug-in

Q. We’ve all heard the adage, ‘you mess around with nature, nature gets back at you.’ Now climate change seems to be a reiteration of this adage. What are your comments on this?

A. Climate change is the most global, most comprehensive manifestation of this wise saying. Over the last two centuries, human activity has been destabilizing the global climate: a natural resource which has been taken for granted for millennia, particularly by the agrarian community. There is scientific evidence that the global warming which occurred over the last century cannot be ascribed to natural causes alone. The effects of global warming are on the whole negative and they will be felt most harshly by the poor people of the world.

Q. And this applies to the developing nations?

A. It applies to all nations. Obviously, poverty is a reality felt most strongly by developing countries but even in a superpower like the US, heat waves affect the poor more than the rich. The poor in the developed countries, as well as in the developing countries, are more vulnerable.

Q. There’s a very popular notion that besides a greater understanding of climate change and its repercussions, governments are still not ready to commit to the reduction of greenhouse gases. Why is this so?

A. I think because the response to climate change is economic. It is seen as adding to costs. An economic operator facing additional costs will seek to lower them or push them on to somebody else. This is what is happening in the climate change negotiations. The negotiations are perceived as a sharing of burdens, not of opportunities, not as a response to a common threat. Economic defensiveness slows down progress. Climate change is the biggest environmental issue but the global environment is, unfortunately, not at the top of the political and economic agenda.

Q. What exactly is the role of the UNFCCC?

A. The Convention is a legal instrument that is now ratified by virtually all the members of the international community. It is a foundation, a framework, as the name indicates. It holds States together as they work out a global strategy to combat climate change. It commits them to generate and share information amongst themselves. The Convention secretariat records data and is a source of technical expertise on the calculation of emissions and the storage, management, and assessment of the data. The Convention recognizes that the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere should be limited to safe levels. This limitation effort is to be equitably shared. It also recognizes that developed countries should take the lead in limiting emissions and that they should help developing countries financially and technologically to do the same.

Q. We all gather that institutions play a very important role in addressing many critical issues. How would you rate TERI’s efforts in this regard?

A. TERI is a very important think-tank on global climate change in the developing countries. There are many think tanks in the North but very few in the South. TERI is one of the few bright lights here. We need cost-effective solutions to climate change, particularly for developing countries. Because even though historical responsibility lies in the North, the future belongs to the South. The share of the South in global emissions is on the rise. It is very much a player in this game and it must be up front in taking responsibility. TERI is playing a very useful role in pushing such exploration forward.

Q. How do you look at the earthquake in Gujarat?

A. An earthquake is not a human-induced phenomenon the way climate change is. Climate change emanates from human activity: from economic growth, population growth, etc. From what I see, what binds the two together is the vulnerability of the poor nations and the poor people to external shocks. An earthquake is an extreme form of external shock. Climate change unfolds over centuries. I am not saying that the rich are not affected by these phenomena, but they have better houses, better building structures, and there are more options open to them once their house collapses. That is how I look at the terrible tragedy in Gujarat.

Q. Do we have time to mitigate natural disasters or are we running out of time?

A. Of course we have time. But the problem is that, while we have been holding talks and negotiations on climate change, emissions have been shooting up in all countries. The only contrary example is that of the former Soviet Union where emissions have collapsed. Emissions are on the rise. The longer it takes to rein them in, the greater will be the problem and the higher the cost.

Interview series