Listen to the IPCC — it's time to take a deep breath

Today, I'll dispel a myth about addressing climate change concerns. Some people say that if it takes 10-15 years for power plants with carbon capture and storage to come online, it will be too late.

Well, maybe they need to check again.

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said this week that there is no clear evidence that climate change represents an immenent danger to the world.

Don't start hyper-ventilating! I'm just using Dr. Puchauri's comments show that we don't have to run around with our hair on fire. We've got time to bring new technologies to the marketplace to capture and store CO2, and we should be having a discussion about that.

Our industry is serious about bringing new advanced technologies for carbon capture and storage to the point of widespread deployment. Need convincing? Look take a look at the map of demonstration projects that the industry is already helping to fund.

Moreover, as we increase funding for all energy research and development programs, we say that there needs to be additional dollars set aside to match the industry's investment in bringing this new generation of new clean coal technologies into the marketplace. That stands in stark contrast to other groups, which have consistently opposed additional funding for advanced coal research and development.

So let's get focused on what we know: coal use both here in the U.S. and around the world will continue to grow, meaning that reducing CO2 emissions will require new advanced clean coal technologies. And according to the head of the IPCC, we've got time to bring those technologies to the marketplace (and nobody is saying we should delay!).

So the key question is, will you join us in that endeavor?

Comments

[Dr Rajendra K Pachauri]

Dear Sir,

I am surprised to find that words from my interview with AP have been taken totally out of context and distorted to suit the interests of the coal industry. The interviewer had actually talked about recent publications indicating far more rapid deglaciation of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, which could result in sea level rise of several meters. My response was that there is no immediate danger of submergence of small island states as a result of possible sea level rise of several meters. This related to the preceding statement by me, “Small island states are living in a state of fear”. You have distorted this clear statement to say that “there is no clear evidence that climate change represents an imminent danger to the world”. The limited purpose of my response, which is consistent with the IPCC’s record of balanced and comprehensive assessment of climate change, was to emphasize that observations for a year or two or one or two published papers advancing specific conclusions should not lead the IPCC to immediately endorse such findings. As the AP interview correctly quoted, I had said “I don't think we should jump to conclusions if we get material that is based on the last one or two years."

I would like to refute the erroneous interpretation that has been carried on the website of the coal industry where my words have been distorted to convey that climate change does not represent imminent danger to the world. At the very location of the AP interview, i.e. in Poznan, I was privileged to address the 14th Conference of the Parties in its opening session, and my speech is available on the IPCC website. I specifically said the following, which I am quoting verbatim below:

“If global mean temperature increase is to be stabilized between 2.0-2.4°C, then CO2 emissions must peak by 2015.” Does this not convey a sense of urgency?

I have in fact gone further by questioning the adequacy of the target for 2.0-2.4°C temperature increase in the same speech as reproduced below:

“But even the trajectory of stabilisation described above would leave some serious problems in the nature of impacts of climate change. We would need to consider whether the effort to limit increase in global mean temperature to about 2 degrees C would be adequate because sea level rise due to thermal expansion alone with this trajectory would be between 0.4 to1.4 meters. Add to this the melting of ice bodies, and we would have serious effects of sea level rise on low lying coastal areas and small islands.

My plea to this august body would be to please listen to and reflect on the voice of science, and please act with determination and a sense of urgency. We in the IPCC do not prescribe any specific action, but action is a must.”

May I request you to give due prominence to these statements which I am submitting for your website, and at a minimum retract the falsification that you have carried misrepresenting my views.

With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
R K Pachauri
Chairman, IPCC

[Megan from ACCCE]

Mr. Chairman,

We take your comments seriously and will review the article and respond in separate blog post. Look for it here in the week to come.

[Mark O]

I think the IPCC is playing fast and loose with science and their predictions are baseless. But their politicizing of climate change has forced the coal industry to accept their flawed science and produce PR websites like this one.

CO2 sequestration is a red herring. I reject the IPCC's dire pronouncements and advocate building new coal plants with real clean coal technology.