Missing pixels on the UNFCCC transformational big picture

Earlier this year I had questioned the United Nations’ “accomplishments”:

Any wars prevented? Nope. Any genuine progress on advancing human rights in countries in which they are conspicuously absent? Nope. I could go on, but it seems to me that the only “successes” one could conceivably attribute to the UN is the remarkable facility of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to spin scary stories and spawn commissions, committees – and, of course, convene conferences of convolution.

This was illuminated by one of the many run-up to Rio+20 UNEP exercises in media message massaging:

The peoples of the world will simply not tolerate continued environmental devastation or the persistent inequality which offends deeply held universal principles of social justice [...]
[...]
international, national and local governance across the world must fully embrace the requirements of a sustainable development future, as must civil society and the private sector.
[...]
Achieving sustainability requires us to transform the global economy.

Excerpted (by me) from the UN High Level Panel’s pronouncements on Global Sustainability

Following the convenient departure (after the Copenhagen 2009 débacle) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) head honcho, Yvo de Boer whose most recent prediction pales in comparison to that of IPCC-nik and newly-minted British Columbia Green Party candidate Andrew <barrage of intergalactic ballistic missiles> Weaver, the UN head honcho, Ban Ki-Moon, appointed Christiana Figueres to fill his shoes.

Paving the way for his successor’s edicts, in a (no doubt unprecedented) performance down-under:

Yvo de Boer, the UN climate chief during the 2009 Copenhagen climate change talks, said his conversations with scientists working on the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested the findings would be shocking. “That report is going to scare the wits out of everyone,” Mr de Boer said in the only scheduled interview of his visit to Australia. “I’m confident those scientific findings will create new political momentum.” [emphasis added -hro]

But I digress …

The UNFCCC’s scant bio notes that Figueres’ credentials include:

a Masters Degree in Anthropology from the London School of Economics, and a certificate in Organizational Development from Georgetown University. She was born in San José, Costa Rica in 1956 and is married with two children.

Now, don’t get me wrong … Some of my best friends have degrees in Anthropology (and at a higher level than hers!) but – unlike Figueres – when given the option, they chose “Critical Thinking 101″ rather than “Propaganda 101″. Figueres’ expertise – that one suspects she may have acquired from her course(s) in Propaganda – is evident in a paper she purportedly authored while she was a “member of the Executive Board of the [UNFCCC's] Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)”. The title of this sixteen page undated opus (which may or may not have been peer reviewed prior to apparent publication somewhere or other): FROM TONS TO TRENDS: TRANSFORMATION OF THE CLIMATE REGIME. The introduction [paragraphs shortened for ease of reading and emphases mine]:

Given the fact that climate change is one of the greatest challenges humanity has ever faced, the Kyoto Protocol can only be recognized as preparation for the much deeper and broader engagement that will clearly be necessary after 2012. The Kyoto Protocol was never meant as a solution to the climate change problem. Limited in its targets, timeframe, and participation, the Protocol’s most important success will not be in reaching its objectives – if they are reached – but rather in laying the institutional, legal, and technical groundwork for the future regime.

Whether we are effective in dealing with climate change will not depend on the number of greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions achieved by the end of the first commitment period, but rather on whether we can affect the emission trajectories of both industrialized and developing countries post 2012. While the Protocol focuses on tons of GHG to be reduced between 2008 and 2012, in the future we will have to focus on changing emission trends in both industrialized and developing nations.

This chapter first identifies six design elements that must be transformed as we move from the current Protocol to the post 2012 regime, shifting the focus from tons to trends. The elements are not independent of each other, but rather interrelated and to a certain extent mutually dependent. The paper then discusses the implications of this shift for the governance of the future regime.

Interestingly, the “science” count in this paper is 0; however, the “mechanism” count is 7, “regime” count is 19 and “transform” (and variants thereof) is 9. So, while I’ve no idea what a “climate regime” might be, it seems that Figueres is certainly hooked on “transformation” – if not transubstantiation – of “regimes”.

I’m not sure which of her “credentials” would be a suitable “authority” for the validity of her recent pronouncements via Yale’s “environment 360″ [h/t Andrew Montford, aka Bishop Hill] that:

we are inspiring government, private sector, and civil society to [make] the biggest transformation that they have ever undertaken. The Industrial Revolution was also a transformation, but it wasn’t a guided transformation from a centralized policy perspective. This is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science.

Alas, it seems that Figueres (and/or her ghost-writer) is yet another unfortunate product of a post-modernist education.

Consequently, in her appeal to the authority of “science”, Figueres (and the “governments” she claims agree with her transformational whatevers) clearly fails to recognize that, as real scientist Richard Lindzen has noted [h/t Tallbloke]:

science is primarily a successful mode of inquiry rather than a source of authority

But speaking of the UNFCCC, transformations and “science” … there’s an interesting page [backup here] I came across on the UNFCCC’s site. It’s quite informative – and provides a guide to many of the acronymic offspring it has spawned over the years. The very last item in this rather long list reads as follows:

IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses, at regular intervals, the most recent scientific, technical and socioeconomic information produced worldwide, relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate-related data or parameters. The COP receives the outputs of the IPCC and uses IPCC data and information as a baseline on the state of knowledge on climate change in making science based decisions.  For example, the Fifth Assessment Report of IPCC, which is due in 2014, will provide input into the COP review of the long term temperature goal and the work of the Ad hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action.

Yet, for some strange reason, the IPCC seems to be missing in action from the UNFCCC’s BIG picture at the top of the page:

Whatever happened to the IPCC?!

Perhaps this big picture was what led IPCC chair, Rajendra Pachauri to recently whine that the IPCC had not been invited to the forthcoming UNFCCC COP 18 confab in Doha ;-)

Previous post withdrawn … and more post-Rio gleanings

Sorry, folks … I was experimenting with “Storify” and my creation really was far from ready for prime-time live – but I was hoping to see an intermediate step between Storify export and WordPress publish. If there is one, I haven’t found the magic button. So I have deleted that post, at least for now!

In the meantime, you might want to take a look at some highlights (or lowlights, depending on one’s perspective) from the IISD’s Report (apart from headings, all bolds are mine -hro):

SUMMARY OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: 13-22 June 2012

[...]

IV. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT [IFSD]:

A. Strengthening the Three Dimensions of Sustainable Development: In this subsection, delegates discussed civil society engagement, with differences persisting over the venues for stakeholder involvement and placement of the related text, and on concerns over monitoring roles.

Final Outcome: The document agrees, inter alia, to: strengthen IFSD, including by promoting the “full and effective participation of all countries in decision making processes”; promote the review and stocktaking of progress in implementation of all sustainable development commitments, including those related to MOI [Means of Implementation -hro]; and enhance the participation and “effective engagement” of civil society [civil society is UN-speak for NGOs -hro]. It calls for capacity building especially for developing countries, including in conducting their own monitoring and assessments.

B. Strengthening Intergovernmental Arrangements for Sustainable Development: This subsection includes the UNGA [UN General Assembly -hro], UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), [see my post on this -hro] and the high-level political forum.

[...]

Final Outcome: The document calls for the UNGA to further integrate sustainable development in its work, including through high-level dialogues. It commits to strengthening ECOSOC, and looks forward to the Review of the Implementation of General Assembly Resolution 61/16 on the strengthening of ECOSOC.

It decides to establish a universal intergovernmental high-level political forum, building on the CSD and its “inclusive participation modalities” and “subsequently replacing” the CSD. The high-level forum “could,” inter alia: follow up and review progress in the implementation of sustainable development commitments made at previous UN summits and conferences; and strengthen the science-policy interface including in the form of a global sustainable development report. An intergovernmental process under the UNGA will define its format and organizational aspects, with the aim of convening the first high-level forum at the 68th session of the UNGA.

The outcome document also invites the Secretary-General to present a report on the needs of future generations.

I always thought that “sustainable development” rested on “three pillars”. But it seems that the “pillars” have morphed into “dimensions.” Oh well …

There is a section on Climate Change. Here’s the quasi-official word:

Climate change: The text used as a basis for the negotiations in Rio had five heavily bracketed paragraphs on: protection of the climate system for present and future generations; international responses to climate change; funding mobilization; interlinkages among climate change and other issues such as water, energy and food; and short-lived climate pollutants. One particular area of contention was reference to CBDR [Common But Differentiated Responsibilities -hro], with delegations such as the US, Canada, Japan and Australia requesting its deletion and the G-77/China supporting its retention. Among the other issues of divergence were references to specific UNFCCC COPs, disproportionate impact on women, prompt operationalization of the Green Climate Fund, and immediate action to reduce short-lived climate pollutants.

Final Outcome: The subsection on climate change includes three paragraphs on:

• the threat of climate change, vulnerability of developing countries to climate change, and that adaption to climate change represents an immediate and urgent global priority;

• an effective and appropriate international response with a view to accelerate the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions;

• recalling that the UNFCCC provides that parties should protect the climate system on the basis of equity and in accordance with CBDR;

• mobilizing funding and welcoming the launch of the Green Climate Fund; and

• urging parties to implement commitments under the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol, and to build upon progress achieved including at COP 17 in Durban.

Conspicuous by its absence in the above is any mention of the IPCC. This could be because Chairman Pachauri was occupied with other duties … in the Sustainia tent.

And if you find yourself with time on your hands, you could take a stab at memorizing the “translations” of all the acronyms by perusing the handy Glossary at the bottom of the page.

Report from Reason at Rio

If you are a relative newcomer to the climate wars and/or the foggy mysteries that shroud “climate change”, “sustainable development” and the “green economy”, Reason‘s Ronald Bailey offers an excellent primer and overview of what has led us to the current shenanigans of the United Nations (UN)’s moribund – and hypocritical – bureaucratic tyrants-in-waiting and their “partnership” with BIG Green.

Here are some excerpts from Bailey’s report [h/t Matt Ridley via twitter and all emphases mine]:

Rio +20 Earth Summit: Is Sustainable Development Still Sexy?

This week the United Nations is convening the Rio +20 Conference on Sustainable Development. It’s called Rio +20 to commemorate the fact that 20 years ago, the United Nations held an “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, then modestly billed as “the most important meeting in human history.” The tone is a little different this time around: It turns out that a good portion of the activists attending this time are not at all happy with the concept of sustainable development anymore and are denouncing the Green Economy as a corporate sham.

[...]

The head of the Earth Summit, Canadian oilman Maurice Strong, warned in 1992 that humanity’s deleterious current path “could lead to the end of civilization” and that “this planet could soon become uninhabitable for people.” Besides the official conference, there was the Global Forum at which activists of various stripes and tendencies gathered at a “world’s fair of environmentalism.” Vice presidential hopeful Al Gore was ubiquitous.

At the Earth Summit conferees negotiated the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (U.N.FCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity, along with Agenda 21, an economic central plan for the 21st century. Over the past 20 years the United Nations has convened 17 conferences with the aim of trying to impose carbon rationing on the world as a way to combat climate change chiefly caused by greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels. The Biodiversity Convention has chiefly been a vehicle used by activists to slow efforts to get biotech crops to poor farmers in the developing world and to rich farmers in Europe.

[...]

In any case, economic development is certainly a worthy endeavor since 1.3 billion people still live on less than $1.25 per day and some 900 million people face hunger. The U.N. conference itself is negotiating a document called, The Future We Want, [PDF] which embodies a lot of aspirational language, but also aims to set up a process that will establish a set of Sustainable Development Goals and some kind of institutional framework for sustainable development to oversee the implementation of those goals, i.e., a U.N. bureaucracy. And to implement whatever the goals are the poor countries want the rich countries to give them $100 billion per year in sustainable development aid starting in 2018. Negotiations over this 80-page document have been quite contentious; only 20 percent of the text has been agreed to so far.

According to the U.N., the Future We Want is the Green Economy. However, a sizeable percentage of environmental activists going to the conference believe that the Green Economy is merely more corporate capitalism in green-face.[...]

As for the UNFCCC … never let it be said that Rajendra K. Pachauri, the Chair of the disgraced – and disgraceful – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been remiss in carrying out the now openly admitted obligations of the IPCC to the UNFCCC. Far from being “transparent, impartial, objective” etc. as was reported at the conclusion of the recent (and, rather surprisingly, quietly held) 35th Session of the IPCC:

Switzerland [home of IPCC bigwig Thomas Stocker -hro] highlighted the UNFCCC as the IPCC’s main client [emphasis added -hro]

[UPDATE: 06/16/2012 07:05 PM Pls. see comments below for other interesting observations about the IPCC and its "main client"]

This is certainly in keeping with Pachauri’s earlier proclamation of his “cause” and mission, as Donna Laframboise has reported:

I am not going to rest easy until I have articulated in every possible forum the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. That’s the real issue. Climate change is just a part of it. [bold added]

And considering the “focus” of Rio+20, in hindsight, it is not surprising that Pachauri’s July, 2009 “vision” for the currently-being-manufactured Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) included:

Climate change needs to be assessed in the context of sustainable development, and this consideration should pervade the entire report across the three Working Groups. In past assessments sustainable development and its various linkages with climate change were seen largely as an add-on. Most governments who have commented on this issue have highlighted the need to treat sustainable development as an overarching framework in the context of both adaptation and mitigation.

In the (rather typical) absence of any quantification of “most governments” who might have so commented, I would think that Pachauri is probably pleased as punch to be “engineering” the latest and greatest IPCC report – along with such sterling “scientific” luminaries as Gergis and Karoly.

Royal Society’s green chemist waves little red book in Rio

Martyn Poliakoff: Green chemist of the Royal Society

Professor Martyn Poliakoff, CBE FRS – who looks like a jolly good fellow, as you can see – is Research Professor in Chemistry at the U.K.’s University of Nottingham. He’s also an Honorary Professor of Chemistry at Moscow State University, and currently serves as the Foreign Secretary and Vice President of the Royal Society (RS). Poliakoff is also known for his popular video series, The Periodic Table of Videos.

The RS website also notes that Poliakoff is a

green chemist, working on gaining insights into fundamental chemistry and on developing environmentally acceptable chemical processes and materials.

Hmmm … “environmentally acceptable” that’s a new one – at least to me. I wonder how one determines whether a product, process or material is “environmentally acceptable” (EA) – as opposed to “environmentally friendly” (EF) – and which of the two is better, or the best! But I digress …

The Carnival,

Image captured from http://www.iisd.ca/uncsd/rio20/enbots/13jun.html

sorry, UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) aka Rio+20 has begun with a series of side-shows, sorry, Side Events.

One Side Event on June 13, was entitled “People and the Planet: Population, consumption and the environment” and it was presented by (drum roll please ….) “The Royal Society of the UK, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), and the African Institute for Development Policy”.

We are told that <bureaucratic word salad alert>:

This event focused on how both changing population dynamics and increasing levels of material consumption present long-lasting challenges to human health and wellbeing, and to the natural environment.

Poliakoff, presumably wearing his “green chemist” and RS Foreign Secretary hats, was the first panelist. Here’s the quasi-official précis of his presentation (and a pic of Poliakoff waving the Society’s “little red book”):

Poliakoff and Royal Society report on “People and the Planet”

[Poliakoff] presented his organization’s report on “People and the Planet,” which linked population, consumption and the environment. He stressed the important role of scientists in the sustainability policy discussion and in ensuring that natural resources are more efficiently used. He also emphasized that 1.3 billion people need to consume more basic materials to lift themselves out of poverty, while many in developed countries must consume less by learning to use natural resources more efficiently. [emphasis added -hro]

One wonders if the “many” who “must consume less” excludes those who travel the world telling the rest of us to do so.

This is The Future We Want?! Nah, I don’t think so, do you?

If you can’t blame Israel … blame climate change

A not-so-new movie that I think I’d like to watch was recently reviewed in Commentary by Jonathan Tobin. Some excerpts:

Film Review: “U.N. Me” — Everything the Left Doesn’t Want to Know About the UN

Those who view his films as compendiums of distorted propaganda may rightly despise Michael Moore, but there’s no denying that his work re-popularized the documentary as an independent art form while effectively promoting his views.

[...]

In “U.N. Me,” Ami Horowitz and Matthew Grof [...] takes [the] audience on an international tour intended to show that the United Nations is a corrupt talking shop that has made a mockery of the ideals that it was created to promote. As “U.N. Me” makes clear, the world body has criminal peacekeepers who fail to protect the innocent, purposely-blind nuclear inspectors, thieves in charge of food programs, and has a Human Rights Council that is a forum for tyrants and murderers.

This may be familiar territory for readers of COMMENTARY, but if the intended audience is the crowd who enjoys the politically skewed humor of [Michael] Moore and [Morgan] Spurlock’s movies, a great many eyes will be opened. Judging their effort by the standard set by those two, “U.N. Me” must be considered a resounding success. The film combines a low-key sense of righteous indignation at the outrageous behavior it uncovers with humor and paints its subjects as hypocrites and scoundrels.

[...]

To get past the prejudices of filmgoers predisposed to dismiss criticism of the U.N., Horowitz concentrates his fire on the causes that most appeal to liberal sensibilities, such as the genocide in Darfur. That means the number one object of U.N. perfidy — the state of Israel — is conspicuous by its absence in the film. Though so much of what is wrong about the U.N. is illustrated by the widespread anti-Semitism given a hearing in its halls and the double standard by which the democratic State of Israel is subjected to most of the resolutions adopted by the institution, the Jewish state is mentioned only in passing throughout “U.N. Me.”

[...]

The direct failure of the U.N. to do anything to stop the genocide in Rwanda though it had the forces on the spot and the intelligence to do so is a heartbreaking story, and here, Horowitz goes easy on the humor. But he makes up for that with his exploration of the U.N.’s failures to deal with genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan during which a Sudanese diplomat asserts that “climate change” is the reason so many were massacred by his government, prompting Horowitz to suggest that more Priuses is the answer to the problem.

The film also goes into great depth to describe the way ordinary corruption is part of business as usual at the U.N.. The “oil for food” scandal in which Saddam Hussein skimmed more than $10 billion from the world body in exchange for millions in bribes to U.N. officials is a central part of the story. At its core is the role of former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, demonstrating that this scheme was ordinary practice and not an exception.

And though the documentary doesn’t go into the bizarre way the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) has helped perpetuate the plight of the Palestinians (the U.N. has one agency for all other refugees and one devoted to the Palestinians), it is shown as employing terrorists in Gaza and allowing their ambulances to be used as getaway vehicles.

[...]

Horowitz and Groff have produced a documentary that may at times be a little too jocose for its serious subject matter, but is nevertheless always watchable and infused with genuine wit. It remains to be seen whether their praiseworthy effort to tell this important story will get the exposure it deserves, but anyone who takes the time to watch “U.N. Me” cannot help but walk away sharing the filmmaker’s frustration and disgust with the U.N.

Take a look at the trailer

Of happiness and a sustainable feast

So a week from tomorrow will be <aaaak> Friday the thirteenth. But in the Jewish/Hebrew calendar, today is the 13th of the month of Nisan in the year 5772. As it is written: י״ג בְּנִיסָן תשע״ב Be sure to read from right to left! … there’s Biblical Hebrew and modern Hebrew aka Ivrit … but both are written/read from right to left. And – thank goodness – to date, there’s no post-modern Hebrew.

To the best of my knowledge, there’s nothing in the Torah or the Tanach which would suggest that CO₂ is ever going to be a problem for the inhabitants of our planet.

On the other hand, to the best of my knowledge, there’s nothing in either which would suggest that a body such as the United Nations (UN) would be instrumental in contributing to and/or inventing so many problems that our world is doomed unless we follow and swallow their prescriptions.

And speaking of the UN’s prescriptions … you might want to take a look at Terence Corcoran’s:

Get ready for the Rio Happiness Summit

At the United Nations on Monday, they took a major step toward a global strategy to enhance your happiness status, and the happiness of everybody else in the world. It’s the new role for governments across the planet. If the UN has its way, the state’s major objective will be to boost your sense of well-being and improve how you feel about your life.
[...]
[...] under the auspices of the Kingdom of the United Nations, the high priests of economic interventionism and wealth redistribution moved one step closer to turning Gross National Happiness into a global paradigm.

They issued a report — the World Happiness Report. They staged a conference — Well-being and Happiness: Defining a New Economic Paradigm. And they fashioned a declaration — Realizing a World of Sustainable Well-being and Happiness.

The declaration is in turn intended to become part of “a long-term reference framework” for the coming Rio +20 Earth Summit, a grand replay in June this year of Maurice Strong’s 1992 Rio Earth Summit.

At Rio +20, the UN activists hope to change the direction of world economic policy-making. Production goals and measures based on dollars and yen are out. Happiness measures are in — even though the concepts, happiness and “subjective well-being,” remain vacuous bits of quasi-religious sophistry.

[...]

Invoking poverty, inequality and climate disaster hasn’t worked in a world that wants growth, more energy and bigger refrigerators. The ’92 Rio Summit caused a lot of economic policy mayhem, but it is a fading source of authority. The carbon scare is out of steam, and environmental extremism has less influence.

The only emerging alternative is a new intellectual manoeuvre that may appeal to the average voter more than, say, inequality. Instead, the new message will be: Vote for massive government intervention to improve your happiness.

[...]

To no surprise, with [UN resolution] 65/309 as a mandate, the Monday meeting in New York produced a radical declaration calling for the overthrow of the “current economic paradigm” to take into account finite global resource limits and the emerging science of well-being and happiness.

What that means, aside from the same old nitty-gritty policies such as more government job creation, is nothing less than a “redesign of the world economy” and the overthrow of existing economic ideas to be replaced by the pursuit of happiness as defined by the United Nations, not [by] individuals.

It looks like Rio +20 will be a dangerous place to be this coming June.

Don’t know about you, but I’m not particularly impressed with the UN’s determination of what constitutes “happiness”. You might say that I’m more of a traditionalist when it comes to happiness – not to mention <gasp> scientific endeavours.

But speaking of tradition … tomorrow night, those of my tribe will begin celebrating a very sustainable feast: Passover.

 

Chag sameach Pesach to those who celebrate, and Happy Easter or Happy Stat Holiday to those who don’t.

A profusion of panels and pronouncements en route to Rio+20

The U.K.’s Fred Pearce is probably one of the more respected (albeit green-tinted) MSM commentators on climate change, aka global warming, and other matters environmental (or, as is appearing to be more au courant, these days, “sustainable development”). So I found it somewhat surprising that he provided no primary source(s) for a Feb. 10 article of his that appears on the NewScientist website:

Earth Summit is doomed to fail, say leading ecologists

We can forget about fixing the planet’s ecosystems and climate until we have fixed government systems, a panel of leading international environmental scientists declared in London on Friday. The solution, they said, may not lie with governments at all.

“We are disillusioned. The current political system is broken,” said Bob Watson, the UK government’s chief environmental science advisor, who chaired the meeting.

The panel, all winners of the prestigious Blue Planet prize, often seen as the Nobel prize for environmental science, were meeting to prepare a statement for the Earth Summit 2012, to be held in Rio de Janeiro in June – 20 years after the original Earth Summit in that city.
[...]
No one held out much hope that the forthcoming summit would usher in a new era. Politicians do not seem interested. [...] But this year’s event will last just three days, and so far China’s president Hu Jintao is the only head of state scheduled to attend.
[...]
The top priorities, according to Watson, are ending the fossil-fuel era to curb climate change, and investing in limiting population by making contraception available to all.
[...]
The laureates said leadership was most likely to come from local government, NGOs and corporations, rather than national leaders or the UN. [...]

“We do believe that the political system can be reformed, and that there will be technical solutions. But time is not on our side,” Watson said. [emphasis added -hro]

Hmmmm … Bob Watson, sorry, “Professor Sir Robert Watson FRS” (which means that he’s a jolly good Fellow of the Royal Society) has a long string of chairmanships to his name – including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), where he preceded Rajendra K. Pachauri, and during its gestation, the IPCC’s waiting-in-the-wings younger sibling, the IPBES.

Few will be surprised to learn that Watson is also Professor of Environmental Sciences; Director of Strategic Development, Tyndall at the University of East Anglia (home of the Climatic Research Unit [CRU]). Nonetheless, considering his other day job, that of DEFRA Chief Scientific Advisor (i.e. someone very close to the U.K. government), this particular panel’s proclamations are somewhat surprising. But perhaps Watson was speaking through wearing a different hat.

OTOH, there is much to be said for this panel’s recognition that “leadership” is unlikely to come from the UN – an organization that does not seem to believe in practicing what it preaches, particularly in the accountability and green departments.

Nor is “transparency” an over-riding concern at the UN’s highest planning echelons. Evidently, Ban Ki Moon and his top advisors held a “closed door retreat”, last October, as George Russell of FoxNews reported a few days ago:

At a closed-door retreat in a Long Island mansion late last October, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and his topmost aides brainstormed about how the global organization could benefit from a “unique opportunity” to reshape the world, starting with the Rio + 20 Summit on Sustainable Development, which takes place in Brazil in June.

A copy of the confidential minutes of the meeting was obtained by Fox News. According to that document, the 29-member group, known as the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination (CEB), discussed bold ambitions that stretch for years beyond the Rio conclave to consolidate a radical new global green economy, promote a spectrum of sweeping new social policies and build an even more important role for U.N. institutions “to manage the process of globalization better.”
[...]

When it came to global issues, the U.N. chieftains were encouraged to think well beyond the environment and the international economy into a wide variety of social spheres, from human rights to health and education, where there was a “need for a global framework and national frameworks” for the development of new policies. The national policies “should be derived from the core values and norms that the U.N. system embodied, to ensure coherence between national level and global goals and aspirations”.

For some of those present at the gathering, those values seemed to include a heavy reliance on populist methods to push the U.N.’s Rio message to a global audience, bypassing member governments along the way.

There is a link to these confidential minutes from Russell’s article; however, each page is a scanned image. As a public service, I have downloaded a copy of these minutes and (using OCR) have converted the 15 image pages to text in a pdf, which makes it more convenient for searching and citing.

The first thing I noticed when reviewing this “Confidential Summary of Discussions” was:

In his introductory remarks, the Secretary-General welcomed [...] Mr. Janos Pasztor, Executive Director of his High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability, whom he had invited to join this discussion.

Hmmm … The “High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability” certainly rings a familiar bell, which is not surprising since I wrote about this panel’s pronouncements not too long ago! A few highlights from the paragraphs I had excerpted from their Jan. 30/2012 report, just to refresh your memory:

• sustainable development is fundamentally a question of people’s opportunities to influence their future, claim their rights and voice their concerns
• peoples of the world will simply not tolerate continued environmental devastation or the persistent inequality which offends deeply held universal principles of social justice
• governance across the world must fully embrace the requirements of a sustainable development future, as must civil society and the private sector
• Achieving sustainability requires us to transform the global economy. Tinkering on the margins will not do the job. The current global economic crisis, which has led many to question the performance of existing global economic governance, offers an opportunity for significant reforms. It gives us a chance to shift more decisively towards green growth
• Governments should establish price signals that value sustainability to guide the consumption and investment decisions of households, businesses and the public sector
• To achieve sustainable development, we need to build an effective framework of institutions and decision-making processes at the local, national, regional and global levels. We must overcome the legacy of fragmented institutions established around single-issue “silos”
• As international sustainable development policy is fragmented and, in particular, the environmental pillar is weak, UNEP should be strengthened

Remember the silos? Funnily enough they also appear (pp. 6, 10 and 12) in the “Confidential Summary of Discussions”. One instance appears on p. 12. But first some context …

Mr. Harris took the floor to present the HLCP report on “Moving towards a Fairer, Greener and More Sustainable Globalization”. He apologized for the delay in sharing the document with CEB members and added that it was in a large part connected to a very collaborative effort, taking into account the extremely comprehensive inputs and subsequent comments received from all agencies.

He emphasized that the report was not a reflection of the specific contributions of every agency to sustainable development or globalization, but rather a reflection on how to manage the process of globalization better. He outlined the focus and content of each [of the three sections].

“Mr. Harris” is evidently Elliott Harris, Vice-Chair of the HLCP. Assuming that Google has not led me astray, though, it would appear that the HLCP is the “UN Systems’ High Level Committee on Programs” (not to be confused with the “UN Systems High Level Committee on Management (HLCM)”). And what the world definitely needs is, of course, a warm and fuzzy “Fairer, Greener and More Sustainable Globalization”, right?! Now that this has been cleared up … back to the “Confidential Summary” … Mr. Harris’ report continues [text reformatted for ease of reading -hro]:

Global institutions had proven unable to deal effectively with some of these key global issues, in part because of silo-based implementation and the absence of effective mechanisms for global level coordination.

The crisis provided an opportunity to review the process with
1} a renewed recognition of the role of the State;
2) an acknowledgment that social policies had positive economic and development consequences; and
3) an appreciation of the value of collective and coordinated action at the global level.

The reflection had also shown that adopting policies that ensured that globalization generated fairer, greener and more sustainable outcomes also fostered sustainable development.

Unfortunately (as I had noted in my earlier post) not all of the minutes of the High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability (HLPGS) are available for public perusal. So I cannot confirm this, but it does not seem unreasonable to assume that Janos Pasztor (Executive Director of the HLPGS) carried the “secret” message from Mr. Harris regarding the lack of effectiveness of the “silo-based” approach.

14 instances of “green economy” are found in this “Confidential Summary”. There are a few occurrences which would suggest at least one reason why Achim Steiner – who happens to be the head of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and who, evidently acted as “moderator” for the session – had determined
that the proceedings would not be made public [text reformatted and emphasis added -hro]:

On the green economy theme, [Mr. Sha] stated that Rio+20 should be the catalyst to integrate the economic, social and environmental pillars of sustainable development, energize implementation of the sustainable development agenda, and lead to coherent policies and programmes at all levels – integration, implementation and coherence.

He stressed, however, that reaching a common understanding on the meaning, scope and implications of the green economy had been generating considerable debate. Many agreed that the Conference should first clarify what the green economy was not, in order to help define what it could be. He outlined that it was not an one-size-fits-all approach to development, an excuse for green protectionism in trade or for green conditionality in aid and fmance, a way to put nature under corporate control, or a model of tinkering at the margins of “business as usual”.

It should be based on the set of principles agreed upon at Rio 1992, including the concept of common but differentiated responsibility, and seen as a way to help accelerate progress towards sustainable development and poverty eradication. It should re-orient public and private decision-making to reflect and respect natural capital, synergize growth and environmental protection, and include the poor as main beneficiaries, as well as active participants in building such a green economy.

The (al)most sensible voice at the table seemed to be that of Mr. Panitchpakdi (who may – or may not – be the Secretary-General of the UN Conference on Trade and Development [UNCTAD]) who:

stated that the peer review (! -hro) concept within a revised global institutional governance mechanism for sustainable development was good but premature given the fact that there was as yet no common agreement on a definition of the green economy. He also renewed his call for caution about adding yet new institutional layers. When a sectoral structure and silo approach still prevailed within the system, he advocated for renewed efforts at syncronization and harmonization of existing structures, rather than the creation of new ones.

So the alarmists and green-growthers of the world have been yammering on for years about the need for a “green economy”, yet it would appear that even those at the the highest echelons of the UN have not yet agreed on a definition!

The astute reader, however, will notice that this did not seem to prevent Pasztor from picking up yet another expression (“tinkering at the margins”) and dropping it on the table of the HLPGS.

One other excerpt from this “Confidential Summary” is rather noteworthy. It was part of Harris’ report (p.12):

The UN also suffered from a double perception problem – a general scepticism as to whether the UN was the appropriate forum for timely decision-making; and a feeling that the UN only dealt with development and was not relevant to all its member countries.

Perhaps all these panels should consider skipping the pronouncements … and singing a different tune … Let’s call the whole thing off?!

Of hypocrites, high-level panels and … sherpas and silos

As Donna Laframboise noted in a post, yesterday, from Feb. 2-4, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chair, Rajendra K. Pachauri, will be donning yet another of his many hats, as he engineers a bridge from “climate change” to “sustainability” (en route to Rio+20).

TERI, another of Pachauri’s enterprises, will be hosting the “12th Delhi Sustainable Development Summit”, the theme of which is “Protecting the Global Commons 20 Years Post Rio”. Will this Summit be a demonstration of Pachauri and his fellow summitteers practicising what they preach? Not a chance, as Donna’s post confirms. As Director General of TERI, Pachauri will have a starring role in the proceedings (he is listed as appearing, in one role or another, no less than five times – but always with his TERI hat, never with his IPCC hat).

The agenda for this Summit is, well, interesting! From a strictly Canadian perspective, there will be two participants, one, Stéphane Dion, is included in the list of “Government” speakers and the other, Dr. Yves Bolduc, is listed among the participating “Ministers”.

But here’s the thing … Dion is shown as being “M.P., House of Commons Canada”, which he is; however, given the current status of the political party he once led, he isn’t even a member of the Official Opposition – let alone of “government”. He may well have been invited due to his (disastrous, and resoundingly rejected) “Green Shift” (carbon tax) plan – or perhaps because he and his wife had decided to name their dog “Kyoto”.

Bolduc is listed as “Minister of Health & Social Services Quebec”, which he is; however, while all the other “Ministers” on this tab appear to be representatives of countries, last time I checked, Quebec was still a province, not a country! I also wonder how he got his invite as a speaker; he seems like a nice enough fellow, I suppose; and it could be “His desire to continually find ways to improve the lives of his fellow man [...]” that earned him such a prestigious invitation. Or perhaps it was his “degree in bioethics”. But enough about the small fry Canadian content …

The agenda is quite full. On the first day, following a 15 minute “Tea with the Prime Minister” (who will then conduct a 45 minute “Inauguration”) and a subsequent 45 minute “Leadership Panel I”, there will be a 50 minute session of “Keynote Addresses”, chaired by Yvo de Boer who, you may recall, jumped ship as Executive-Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) following the Copenhagen débacle in December 2009. de Boer has moved on to greener pastures, as the “Special Global Advisor, Climate Change and Sustainability, KPMG International, UK”. There will be three “Keynote Addresses”:

• Protecting Our Common Future through Multilateralism
• Asian Actions to Improve Prosperity while Protecting the Global Commons
• Thinking About Climate Change: What Can We All Do?

The last of these three will be delivered by “Nobel Laureate, Dr Elinor Ostrom“

Among other speakers/participants (as “Heads of State/Government”) is Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland “Former Prime Minister of Norway”. Brundlandt definitely has “form” (as the Brits would say) when it comes to matters sustainable:

Throughout her political career, Dr Brundtland has developed a growing concern for issues of global significance. In 1983 the then United Nations Secretary-General invited her to establish and chair the World Commission on Environment and Development. The Commission, which is best known for developing the broad political concept of sustainable development, published its report Our Common Future in April 1987.

The Commission’s recommendations led to the Earth Summit – the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

And in case you’re wondering what this “broad political concept of sustainable development” might be, allow Ask Earth Trends (which seems to be a somewhat dormant offshoot of the World Resources Institute [WRI]) to enlighten you:

‘Sustainable Development’ is an official term, coined in a 1987 report produced by the World Commission on Environment and Development. Entitled Our Common Future or the Brundtland Report (after the Chairman of the commission, former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland), the report defines ‘sustainable development’ as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”; this includes economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity [which, if I'm not mistaken, are known as the "three pillars" of sustainable development -hro].

After Lunch on Day 1, Brundtland will be one of four speakers at “Leadership Panel II” (these two “Leadership Panels” will both address the topic “Leading to Preserve the Global Commons”). Brundtland’s billing for this agenda item includes an additional detail: she is a “Member of the UN Secretary General’s Global Sustainability Panel, Norway”. And, by happy coincidence, a few hours later, there will be a 15 minute “Launch of the Report of UN Secretary General’s High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability”.

It may (or may not) be reasonable to assume that the “UN Secretary General’s Global Sustainability Panel” is the same as the “UN Secretary General’s High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability”. Whether they are the same or not, Brundtland is a member of the latter, and an “Overview” of this Panel’s (full) report contains 56 recommendations. Some excerpts from the Overview (all emphases are mine -hro):

United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability (2012). Resilient people, resilient planet: A future worth choosing, Overview. New York: United Nations.

[p. 2]:

The Report of the High-level Panel on Global Sustainability, entitled Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing, contains six sections in its entirety: Section I – The Panel’s vision; Section II – Progress towards sustainable development; Section III – Empowering people to make sustainable choices, Section IV – Working towards a sustainable economy, Section V – Strengthening institutions; and Section VI – Conclusion: A call for action. This overview reproduces Section I from the Panel’s report. The Summary of Sections and the Call for Action are taken from the report’s Executive Summary. The Panel’s recommendations are reproduced in full.

Disclaimer: The members of the Panel endorse the report and generally agree with its findings. The members think that the message of this report is very important. The recommendations and the vision represent the consensus the Panel members reached, but not every view expressed in this report reflects the views of all individual Panel members. Panel members naturally have different perspectives on some issues. If each Panel member had individually attempted to write this report, she or he might have used different terms to express similar points. The Panel members look forward to the report stimulating wide public dialogue and strengthening the common endeavour to promote global sustainable development.

Hmmm … seems like it’s a “consensus”, but perhaps not quite!

[pp. 3-6 The Panel's Vision]:

5. The truth is that sustainable development is fundamentally a question of people’s opportunities to influence their future, claim their rights and voice their concerns. Democratic governance and full respect for human rights are key prerequisites for empowering people to make sustainable choices. The peoples of the world will simply not tolerate continued environmental devastation or the persistent inequality which offends deeply held universal principles of social justice. Citizens will no longer accept governments and corporations breaching their compact with them as custodians of a sustainable future for all. More generally, international, national and local governance across the world must fully embrace the requirements of a sustainable development future, as must civil society and the private sector. At the same time, local communities must be encouraged to participate actively and consistently in conceptualizing, planning and executing sustainability policies. Central to this is including young people in society, in politics and in the economy.

6. Therefore, the long-term vision of the High-level Panel on Global Sustainability is to eradicate poverty, reduce inequality and make growth inclusive, and production and consumption more sustainable, while combating climate change and respecting a range of other planetary boundaries.

7. [...] We must recognize that the drivers of that challenge include unsustainable lifestyles, production and consumption patterns and the impact of population growth. As the global population grows from 7 billion to almost 9 billion by 2040, and the number of middle-class consumers increases by 3 billion over the next 20 years, the demand for resources will rise exponentially. By 2030, the world will need at least 50 per cent more food, 45 per cent more energy and 30 per cent more water — all at a time when environmental boundaries are throwing up new limits to supply. This is true not least for climate change, which affects all aspects of human and planetary health.

Oh, my … that does sound scary, doesn’t it?! Well, you get the flavour of their “vision”. In case you were wondering “civil society” is UN-speak for Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as Greenpeace, WWF etc. But I haven’t yet come across a definition for “planetary boundaries” or “environmental boundaries”. Perhaps they are the new, improved “tipping points”. Oh, wait … here they are:

17. b. It is time for bold global efforts, including launching a major global scientific initiative, to strengthen the interface between science and policy. We must define, through science, what scientists refer to as “planetary boundaries”, “environmental thresholds” and “tipping points”. Priority should be given to challenges now facing the marine environment and the “blue economy”;

c. Most goods and services sold today fail to bear the full environmental and social cost of production and consumption. Based on the science, we need to reach consensus, over time, on methodologies to price them properly. Costing environmental externalities could open new opportunities for green growth and green jobs;

Well, looks like they haven’t “defined” these terms yet, either; and they are looking to “science” to define that which “science” has named.

But, just a minute! The “blue economy”?! Will the “green growth and green jobs” take care of the “blue economy”?! Stay tuned, folks! And <sigh> it looks like we might be in for yet another “major global scientific initiative”.

[p. 9 Moving Towards a Sustainable Economy]:

Achieving sustainability requires us to transform the global economy. Tinkering on the margins will not do the job. The current global economic crisis, which has led many to question the performance of existing global economic governance, offers an opportunity for significant reforms. It gives us a chance to shift more decisively towards green growth — not just in the financial system, but in the real economy. Policy action is needed in a number of key areas, including:

• Incorporating social and environmental costs in regulating and pricing of goods and services, as well as addressing market failures
• Creating an incentive road map that increasingly values long-term sustainable development in investment and financial transactions
• Increasing finance for sustainable development, including public and private funding and partnerships to mobilize large volumes of new financing
• Expanding how we measure progress in sustainable development by creating a sustainable development index or set of indicators

I don’t know where they think this “large volume of new financing” is going to come from, but brace yourself for yet another call to “put nature on the balance sheet” [as per IPBES and the "new testament" of the climate bible, TEEB]

[p. 14-16 Recommendations for a Sustainable Economy]:

27. Governments should establish price signals that value sustainability to guide the consumption and investment decisions of households, businesses and the public sector. In particular, Governments could:

a. Establish natural resource and externality pricing instruments, including carbon pricing, through mechanisms such as taxation, regulation or emissions trading systems, by 2020;

37. Governments should seek to incentivize investment in sustainable development by shaping investor calculations about the future through, in particular, the greater use of risk-sharing mechanisms and the enhancement of certainty about the long-term regulatory and policy environment. Measures could include targets for renewable energy or conservation, waste reduction, water conservation, access to carbon markets through the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol or sustained prospects for public financing.

Didn’t anyone tell this Panel that “carbon pricing” and “carbon markets” (not to mention Kyoto) are kinda dead in the water?!

Ooops … I almost forgot the “silos” …

[p. 9 Strengthening Institutional Governance]:

To achieve sustainable development, we need to build an effective framework of institutions and decision-making processes at the local, national, regional and global levels. We must overcome the legacy of fragmented institutions established around single-issue “silos” [...]

This High-Level Panel evidently held six meetings between September 19, 2010 and January 12, 2012; although only the final reports and reports of the first three meetings appear to be publicly available – unless you happen to land on the right part of the new, improved Panel site which indicates that reports of the first four meetings are available. If your mouse should take you to the latter, you will see that the Panel appeared to have the assistance of (anonymous) Sherpas – who held eleven meetings of various lengths in various locations. But you’ll need to go back to the original site to find the reports of the Sherpa meetings, well, at least the first four such meetings.

And while you’re there, you might want to take a look at the “Related Documentation” – the first item of which is the “NGLS Summary Report: Civil Society Consultation Conducted for the Global Sustainability Panel”, because of course, no UN report would be complete without input from “civil society” aka NGOs. This “Summary Report” is a convenient 27 page “compilation” derived from 38 “submissions from a diverse array of organizations and networks. Many [...] were from international networks representing several hundred to over one thousand organizations each.” Should you choose to peruse the pages of this “compilation” (as I did), I doubt you will find many surprises!

Other “related” documents include a Background Paper (“Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to Rio” prepared for the first meeting of the Panel by two people from the International Institute on Sustainable Development (IISD) the good folks who produce the Earth Negotiations Bulletins (reports of the multitude of meetings pertaining thereto – including those of the IPCC). But I digress (although I did so for a reason!)

Recommendation 47 is interesting:

[p. 17]:

As international sustainable development policy is fragmented and, in particular, the environmental pillar is weak, [the United Nations Environmental Program, parent of the IPCC, IPBES, and a host of other acronymic offspring purveyor of increasingly scary stories since 1972 -hro] UNEP should be strengthened.

Seems to me, that – based on the inability of the Panel Secretariat to even get its web-act together (as noted in my above digression) – a way must be found to overcome the “fragmented institutions established around single-issue ‘silos’” of the UNEP. Perhaps the UNEP could benefit from the assistance of some … Sherpas.

U.K. or Canada: radical constitutional reform or war on green radicals?

My mouse and I happened to stumble across a press release from that noble institution, the University of East Anglia (UEA), home of the highly esteemed (well, at least in their eyes) Climatic Research Unit (CRU).

University of East Anglia academic calls for radical government measures to safeguard UK future

A University of East Anglia academic is launching a report proposing a ‘super jury’ of ordinary people to act as guardians for the country’s future. The report will be launched at the House of Commons on Tuesday afternoon.

The ‘Guardians of the Future’ report by Dr Rupert Read [...] from the university’s School of Philosophy calls for radical constitutional reform to safeguard the basic needs of future generations.

He proposes that a council of randomly picked members of the public, like a jury, should be placed above the House of Lords to oversee all government decisions – with the power of veto to stop legislation which threatens the interests of future generations.

Dr Read’s ‘super-jury’ would also be charged with the power to force a review of existing legislation which is likely to have negative effects for society in future.

The report will be published by Green House – a think tank set up to lead the development of green thinking in the UK. It sets out proposals for how the guardians could be chosen, how many should sit on the council and how long they would serve for.

Dr Read believes his radical idea would stop us bequeathing a damaged and dangerous country to our descendants.

He said: “This report is meant to stimulate debate about how we can represent the interests of future generations within our existing parliamentary democracy.

[...]

“Obviously future generations can’t be given a vote, but I propose that we give them the closest equivalent by creating a council of Guardians of Future Generations – a third legislative house. They would have the power to scrutinise and if necessary veto proposals that they judge would impact negatively on future people’s basic rights.

“The members of this body would be selected by sortition, as is current practice for jury service, to ensure independence from present-day party political interests. They would be free from party pressure, and the pressures of short term electoral cycles, so they would represent a more genuine ‘us’.

[...]

“It sounds radical, but many radical ideas throughout history have come to be accepted as the norm, after at first seeming to be ‘too extreme’ to many people. A good example is recycling – when Greens first called for this, in the 70s and 80s, they were laughed at, but now we all take recycling for granted.”

I haven’t had a chance to read Read’s report, yet, but here’s an excerpt from the summary:

The Guardians would have a power of veto over legislation that were likely to have substantial negative effects for society in the future, the right to review major administrative decisions which substantially affected future people and the power to initiate legislation to preserve the basic needs and interests of future people.

Not to worry, though … it’s only a “discussion” paper. And considering Read’s credentials:

[He] works closely with environmental scientists, in eco-philosophy, at UEA. His publications include his popular book, Philosophy for Life: Applying Philosophy in Politics and Culture. He was a Green Party Councillor from 2004-2011, and helped write the first draft of the Green 2009 Euro-election manifesto. He blogs on environmental reframing at Green Words.

and the credentials of his Green House colleagues … What’s not to like, eh?!

I thank my lucky stars that there’s an ocean between us. Not to mention that here in Canada, at least, there are signs of more down-to-earth developments. As Terence Corcoran reported in today’s National Post:

A war on green ‘radicals’

Never before has a Canadian politician challenged the hitherto saintly protectors of the environment in such direct language
[...]
It is a cliché in journalism to declare metaphorical wars at the drop of a news release. In this case, it looks like war is exactly what Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver launched Monday in an unprecedented open letter warning that Canada will not allow “environmental and other radical groups” to “hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda.”

What a welcome war this is. Never before has a Canadian politician challenged the hitherto saintly protectors of the environment in such direct language. More importantly, Mr. Oliver took straight aim at a troubling trend in Canadian environmentalism — the foreign funding of Canadian green activist groups with the express purpose of shutting down Canadian resource development — first documented in the National Post by Vancouver investigative writer Vivian Krause.

“These groups,” said Mr. Oliver, “seek to exploit any loophole they can find, stacking public hearings with bodies to ensure that delays kill good projects. They use funding from foreign special interests to undermine Canada’s national economic interest. They attract jet-setting celebrities with some of the largest personal carbon footprints in the world to lecture Canadians not to develop our natural resources.”
[...]

Seems that that the U.K.’s Read was inspired by developments in Hungary – while Canada’s Oliver was very uninspired by developments in Obama’s USA. Radical constitutional reform or war on green radicals? I know which horse I’m backing!

Reforming the “non-policy-prescriptive” IPCC

There’s been a very interesting discussion (well, several, actually!) over at Dr. Judith Curry’s blog: “Public engagement on climate change“. Dr. Richard Tol, an environmental economist, is an IPCC “insider” who had expressed the view that ‘experts should only speak about the areas in which they are specialists’.

He is also one of many academics who have praised Donna Laframboise’s The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert:

Donna Laframboise does what good journalists do. She does not parrot authority, but asks “is that so?” In this book, she shines a hard light on the rotten heart of the IPCC.

However, in one of the sub-threads, a commenter had posed some questions:

If the IPCC is as you have stated, what is to be done?
How does one reasonably differentiate between the IPCC- which is promoted as *the* word on climate change, and the climate science?

To which Tol had responded:

The IPCC will not go away. It will not be reformed from the outside. Reform from the inside is the only option.

See also http://ideas.repec.org/p/esr/wpaper/wp350.html [emphasis added -hro]

So, I followed the link, and found the September 2010 paper, which is entitled “Regulating Knowledge Monopolies: The Case of the IPCC”. The abstract reads:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has a monopoly on the provision of climate policy advice at the international level and a strong market position in national policy advice. This may have been the intention of the founders of the IPCC. I argue that the IPCC has a natural monopoly, as a new entrant would have to invest time and effort over a longer period to perhaps match the reputation, trust, goodwill, and network of the IPCC. The IPCC is a not-for-profit organization, and it is run by nominal volunteers; it therefore cannot engage in the price-gouging that is typical of monopolies. However, the IPCC has certainly taken up tasks outside its mandate; the IPCC has been accused of haughtiness; innovation is slow; quality may have declined; and the IPCC may have used its power to hinder competitors. There are all things that monopolies tend to do, against the public interest. The IPCC would perform better if it were regulated by an independent body which audits the IPCC procedures and assesses its performance; if outside organizations would be allowed to bid for the production of reports and the provision of services under the IPCC brand; and if policy makers would encourage potential competitors to the IPCC.

My response is as follows:

Richard, I read the paper you had linked to, and while I would be the last person to ever dispute that the IPCC is a “monopoly“, I am far from convinced that “reform from the inside” is a viable option.

If the IPCC had any institutional awareness of its shortcomings (or even any genuine concern where concern might count!), we would have seen indications that the IAC’s criticisms have been understood – and its recommendations being implemented.. Instead we have seen a parade of papers paying lip service to “change” – and Pachauri peddling a somewhat softer version of the “party-line” (while insisting – in his oh-so-non-policy-prescriptive-way** – that we all need a carbon tax).

Yes, he’s walked back (via a rather circuitous route) from “all peer-reviewed” (and more recently, in no small measure, I suspect, thanks to Thomas Stocker‘s ingenuity, from an inconvenient rule pertaining thereto).

Amusingly and (I’m sure entirely) coincidentally – a mere week after the launch of Laframboise’s exposé of the IPCC – in an Oct. 20/11 interview, during which he was (inter alia) singing the praises of the IPCC’s personnel and accomplishments, the previously omnipresent phrase “world’s leading experts” was conspicuously absent! They’ve evidently been downgraded in IPCC-speak to “objective, transparent, inclusive talent“. [If you decide to follow the link to the video, be sure to note the rather distinct pause ... almost as though he's grasping for the right word ... before "talent" rolls off his tongue ;-)]

The new, improved Pachauri insists that the IPCC has been doing a “poor job” at communication. Notwithstanding his insistence, not too long ago, that “no one would even be concerned about climate change” if it wasn’t for the wonderful work of the IPCC, preceded by his July 2009:

AR5 is being taken in hand at a time when awareness on climate change issues has reached a level unanticipated in the past. Much of this change can be attributed to the findings of the AR4 which have been disseminated actively through a conscious effort by the IPCC, its partners and most importantly the media. [emphasis added -hro]

IOW, all we’re getting from this organization – in response to the identification of some very serious problems – is rampant “revisionism” and a transparently thin paint job, which some are evidently hoping will disguise the cracks in the foundation and surrounding walls!

“Reform from the inside”?! I don’t think so – certainly, at this rate, not in my lifetime!

** Question: The IPCC maintains that its assessment reports are “policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive”. But your paper indicates that the IPCC provides “climate policy advice”. Is this “policy advice” neutral and non-prescriptive, from your perspective … or is the IPCC still leading us astray?!