Robert Watson - "The United States decided to shoot the messenger"

The renowned expert who lost the chairmanship of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a result of pressure from the United States, praises initiatives for voluntary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

NEW YORK - "The (George W.) Bush administration didn't like the messages that I was conveying from the IPCC, so they decided to shoot the messenger," said global warming expert Robert Watson in an exclusive dialogue with Tierramérica.

The British-born US scientist has led international efforts since 1980 to confront the atmospheric phenomenon occurring as a result of human activities.

Former White House adviser and global warming expert for the World Bank, Watson served as chairman since 1996 of the most influential international body on climate change. Following a campaign led by ExxonMobil, Washington supported the candidate from India, Rajendra Pachauri to head the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), replacing Watson recently by a vote of 76 to 49.

Tierramérica: Why were you unable to achieve a new mandate at the IPCC?

Watson: I think there were probably several. The United States decided not to support my nomination for several different reasons. They said it was time for an expert from a developing country to chair the IPCC. I was confirmed during the Bill Clinton administration (Democrat), and it is conceivable that the change to a Republican administration is another reason. It is possible that the (George W.) Bush administration didn't like the messages that I was conveying from the IPCC, so they decided to shoot the messenger. There was a lot of pressure from some in the energy industry. Not all, but several of (the companies) wanted to replace me.

You have made a great effort to create scientific consensus on the issue of climate change. Do you think we have moved past the scientific controversy on this issue?

I believe there is a consensus. I think a very large majority of scientists do believe that the climate is changing, that we humans are involved and, in large measure, are responsible for it; that future climate change is inevitable and in general there will be more adverse consequences for society and ecological systems; and that the most vulnerable are developing countries and poor people. Seventeen national academies of scientists throughout the world recognized that process and conclusions of our report are very solid. Even the US National Academy of Scientists confirmed the IPCC conclusions.

Now that the European Union and Japan have ratified the Kyoto Protocol on controlling climate change, are you optimistic about the outcome of the international community's efforts, in spite of the US rejection?

The answer is yes, at some level. The Russian Federation, hopefully, will ratify it this year. I think the key question is Canada. The reason why I am somewhat optimistic is that there are 30 or more large multinational companies, including British Petroleum, Shell, Dupont, Kodak, IBN, IBB, Toyota and many others, that already said that they will voluntarily take on commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some of those commitments are even more stringent than the Kyoto Protocol. To be honest, I like the idea. I believe these major multinational companies are deadly serious. But if we only had voluntary measures at the global level, they probably wouldn't work. What is needed is a combination of international goals by governments and voluntary measures by industries.

Latin America and the Caribbean will present an initiative at the World Summit on Sustainable Development making it obligatory to use 10 percent clean energy sources worldwide by 2010. Do you think this initiative is viable?

I will be very surprised if all countries agree to it. That's an aggressive target and one of the important approaches to try to protect the climate systems. One of the issues is to define which are climate friendly technologies. It is one thing to use clean sources - solar, wind or biomass. But some countries are trying to include nuclear energy. The other side of the coin is how we use energy. Having good standards for more efficient cars and equipment in houses and industry are equally part of the puzzle. We have to work on energy technologies, research and development as well as on the right policies that would allow a level playing field. Too many countries have fossil fuel subsidies that effectively encourage the use of fossil fuels at the expense, so to speak, of using clean green energy.

What do you see in the future of the IPCC now that you are no longer the chairman?

On the one hand, I am disappointed I wasn't reelected because I enjoyed doing the work. I felt I did a reasonable job, and no one has criticized me. But I am very optimistic about Pachauri's chairmanship, the IPCC will continue to be very successful. Even though the vote was a little divisive the IPCC should continue to be stay strong, which is essential in assessing scientific, technical and economic knowledge and making sure that decisions at the national or international level are based on that knowledge. In the end, it was a democratic process, and I lost.

* Haider Rizvi is an IPS correspondent.