Tuesday, April 3, 2012


date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 08:32:25 +0100
from: trevor davies <t.d.daviesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: Fw: IPCC fallout
to: "Tim O'riordan" <t.oriordan@uea.ac.uk>,"Mike Hulme" <m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk>


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


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
>NR4 7TJ
>Tel : 01603 592840
>Fax: 01603 250588
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Guy Hughes <guyatXYZxyzpleandplanet.org>
>To: tim O'riordan <t.oriordanatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
>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-talkatXYZxyz.topica.com
>> From: "Bill Hare, CNE" <bhare@diala.gl3>
>> 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
>> 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
>> People & Planet (previously Third World First)
>> Email : guyatXYZxyzpleandplanet.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

No comments:

Post a Comment