date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 08:32:25 +0100 from: trevor davies subject: Re: Fw: IPCC fallout to: "Tim O'riordan" ,"Mike Hulme" Tim, Sorry I didn't get back to you on this. I fell very strongly about this. I think it is quite appalling. However, as Dean, I have taken a very simple line & that is not to sign anything which is "overtly political". I am well aware that the School does much policy relevant work, so it is not an easy distinction to make, & that I can be accussed of adopting too naive a line. I would be seen as signing on behalf of the School, and I think it important that the "School" is seen to be politically neutral/objective. I'm well aware that every case is different, & this is particularly outrageous, but at least if I adopt the same simplistic blanket rule for eveything, I can justify it at least to myself. Trevor At 23:07 24/04/02 +0100, Tim O'riordan wrote: >Dear Mike and Trevor, > >I sent you a draft letter for possinble signikng. Does all this add to you >interest in doing so? I attach a copy again. > >Cheers, Tim > > >Prof. T. O'Riordan >School of Environmental Sciences >University of East Anglia >Norwich >NR4 7TJ > >Tel : 01603 592840 >Fax: 01603 250588 > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Guy Hughes >To: tim O'riordan >Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 9:13 AM >Subject: IPCC fallout > > >> Hi Tim, >> >> FYI here's a report from the Climate Action Network's observer at the >> IPCC reporting on the US/EXXON success at ousting Bob Watson. >> >> I was wondering how the letter was coming along - do your colleagues >> seem willing to sign it? >> >> Very best, >> Guy >> >> >> ------ Forwarded message follows ------- >> To: can-talk@igc.topica.com >> From: "Bill Hare, CNE" >> Subject: [can-talk] IPCC Chairman: Pachauri in, Watson out >> Date sent: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:05:25 +0200 >> Send reply to: bhare@diala.gl3 >> Organization: Greenpeace >> >> [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] >> >> Dear Can colleagues >> >> This note covers the outcome of the IPCC Plenary concluded on Saturday in >Geneva in relation to the Chairmanship position. Many other decisions were >taken and these will be covered in a subsequent note this afternoon or >tomorrow. >> >> As many of you would have seen from press reports over the weekend the >IPCC has voted Dr Pachauri of India into the position of Chairman of IPCC. >Dr Robert Watson was outvoted in a secret ballot on Friday afternoon - >Pachauri 76; Watson - 49; and Goldem >> berg - 7. As far as we can determine based >> on the expressed or inferred voting intentions, the vast majority of >African countries voted heavily for Pachauri as did all the OPECs, several >LatinAmerican countries (Venezuela, Peru and Chile), Japan and some other >Asian countries (India plus others). >> Voting for Watson were all of Europe >> except Russia, China, Canada, NZ and probably Australia plus a collection >of Asian countries and a few small island states present. For those >present it was certainly the ugliest and most vile IPCC meeting ever. >> >> Pachauri in the end refused any role for Watson, a gesture of indecency >not seen before in the IPCC and entirely against the spirit of the IPCC >since it began and all that it has stood for in all of the times past. The >fossil fuel industry was crawling >> all over the process it seems from >> beginning to end: and the beginning it seems was a long time before the >plenary itself and has involved a few senior UN officials acting in >extraordinary a partisan ways. >> >> Speaking personally, whatever view one takes of Pachauri the manner of his >victory and the forces so blatantly and we strongly suspect immorally, >behind the campaign to get him elected, are very likely to haunt his tenure >of the IPCC and probably the IP >> CC itself. In terms of body language at >> the meeting Pachauri spent an inordinate amount of time in consultation >with Don Pealrman and others associated with that camp and were overheard on >numerous occasions plotting and scheming on how to use rules of procedure to >bring on a vote and to keep >> Watson out should Pachauri win. He was too >> engaged with such discussions to talk with NGOs on Saturday. >> >> Objectively there were clear concerns from a group of developing >countries over Watson and his behaviour in the past as well as the concern >for this to be the turn of developing countries. The latter position of >course was spearheaded by the USA i >> n its pre Plenary diplomacy throughout >> Africa and Asia, it seems. In this context proposals for a Co-Chair >arrangement were dismissed as tantamount to suggesting that developing >country scientists were inferior to developed country scientists. In >addition to the election of Pachauri as C >> hair the Working Group co-chairs were >> apppointed and overall there is a very strong and credible line up. Drs >Solomon (USA) and Qin (China) were appointed to WGI on Science, Drs >Canziani (Argentina) and Parry (UK) to WGII on Impacts and Drs Davidson >and Metz (NL) for WGIII (as befor >> e). >> >> It is anticipated by most that Pachauri will not pay as much attention to >the details of the IPCC as Watson or Bolin before him and hence the >strength of the WG Chairs will be very important. In relation to Pachauri >himself it is apparent that many >> concerns were expressed as to an apparent >> conflict of interest between his position as IPCC Chair and position on >the board of the Indian government's oil company. I feel he will need to >resolve this soon. >> >> Some in industry are saying that Pachauri's election means that the IPCC >and governments are distancing themselves from the IPCC TAR and from Watson. >This is wrong but is obviously a pre-determined message and the possibility >of running such a message i >> s likely one of the reasons that many big >> US industries supported Pachauri and the reason why he got such high >profile support from the OPECs. Already one government has had to ask him >to come and address this issue soon because their business associations are >spinning the election this way >> . As to the NGO approach, we have to >> work to make sure that damage to the IPCC is limited as a consequence of >this affair whilst ensuring that its integrity is maintained over time. >My gut feeling is that industrial and political forces supporting >Pachauri and upon whom he so visibly >> relied (in addition to his own >> government) will not rest and nor will they be interested in free >lunches. We need to tell Pachauri that he should be at least as accessible >to NGOs as his predecessors were, and not just to big industries. >> >> I will limit my remarks here. >> >> Cheers >> >> Bill Hare >> Visiting Scientist >> Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) >> Telegrafenberg A31 >> P.O. Box 60 12 03 >> 14412 Potsdam >> GERMANY >> People & Planet (previously Third World First) >> >> Email : guy@peopleandplanet.org >> On-line : www.peopleandplanet.org >> Address : 51 Union Street, Oxford OX4 1JP >> Telephone : UK 01865 245678 >> > >Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\EM letter general1.doc" > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Professor Trevor D. Davies Dean, School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom Tel. +44 1603 592836 Fax. +44 1603 507719 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++