And more on Pachauri , head of IPCC, and his business empire – Sorry, it should officially be a “Non Profit Charity Organization”.
Also not that Pachauri is currently a member of the external advisory board of the Chicago Climate Exchange. Which is actually trading and profiting from the carbon trading.
Another coincidence for his “charity organization”?
Pachauri’s Lucrative World of Climate Change
Written by Rebecca Terrell
Saturday, 02 January 2010 15:30
Many analysts bemoan the failure of governments at December’s UN Climate Change Conference to arrive at a legally binding agreement to rescue the world from alleged pending eco-disaster. But the UN’s top climate official claims Copenhagen was, in many ways, a success.
In an interview with CNBC, Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri, head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), named four achievements brought about at Copenhagen:
• ”We had over 100 heads of state and heads of government [at Copenhagen] … and they came there essentially because they thought this was an important issue.”
• ”The acceptance by at least the countries that are signatories to the accord of limiting temperature increase to 2 degree Celsius.”
• ”They have also referred to the science and the fourth assessment report of the IPPCC on the basis of which they have arrived at this figure of 2 degree increase in temperature.”
• ”The developed countries are talking about providing around USD 30 billion as assistance in the period 2010 to 2012.”
When one considers how much money Pachauri stands to gain from these outcomes, it is easy to understand why he calls Copenhagen a success. The major media and the environmental lobby may lament that Copenhagen delegates failed in their global duty, but such widely reported claims could actually make it easier for guilt-ladened governments to fall for carbon-trading schemes structured to fatten the wallets of Pachauri and his ilk.
Pachauri is hardly shy about admitting the money-making opportunities Copenhagen affords. Speaking of his native land, he said, ”For a country like India, since there will be the clean development mechanism or some such provision in any new agreement, which would allow a developed country to invest in projects over here and get credit for reduction of carbon dioxide emission, there would be huge business opportunities.”
What Pachauri calls ”business opportunities” are termed by others ”financial disaster.” Companies from developed countries that export operations to places like India leave unemployment at home and reap a hefty profit from selling their carbon permits in the global carbon trading market. Consider what happened to 1,700 steel workers from Teesside in northeast England. They lost their jobs when the steel giant Corus announced plans to close two plants and expand operations in India through its parent company, the Tata Group. After the move, Tata sold its English carbon permits for £1.2 billion, as reported by the Express.
Unencumbered by carbon restrictions in India, Tata continues belching CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate that would make Pachauri’s head spin — with delight. You see, the head of the IPCC is also director-general of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), a privately owned climate change think tank established by Tata in 1974. Originally known as the Tata Energy Research Institute, TERI is still solidly linked to Tata despite Pachauri’s claims to the contrary. According to the Telegraph, TERI lists one of the Tata companies among its corporate sponsors, ”several directors of Tata serve on TERI’s Business Council for Sustainable Development, and one senior director servers on Teri’s Advisory Board.”
But that is only the tip of the iceberg. The Telegraph also recently reported that Pachauri maintains ”an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organizations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.” The article went on to mention a host of links with climate change groups that present such a considerable conflict of interest that skeptics at Copenhagen called for Pachauri’s dismissal as IPCC chairman. Consider the following from the Telegraph article:
Dr. Pachauri serves on the advisory board of the Chicago Climate Exchange, the largest and most lucrative carbon-trading exchange in the world. In 2007 he was appointed to the advisory board of Siderian, a San Francisco-based venture capital firm specializing in ‘sustainable technologies.’ In 2008 he was made an adviser on renewable and sustainable energy to the Credit Suisse bank and the Rockefeller Foundation. He joined the board of the Nordic Glitnir Bank as it launched its Sustainable Future Fund, looking to raise funding of £4 billion. He became chairman of the Indochina Sustainable Infrastructure Fund and also became a director of the International Risk Governance Council in Geneva, set up by EDF and E.On, two of Europe’s largest electricity firms, to promote ‘bio-energy.’ [In 2009] Dr. Pachauri joined the New York investment fund Pegasus as a ‘strategic adviser’ and was made chairman of the advisory board to the Asian Development Bank, strongly supportive of CDM (or Clean Development Mechanism, the UN’s profitable carbon-trading market).
He has become head of Yale University’s Climate and Energy Institute… [serves] on the climate change advisory board of Deutsche Bank… [is] director of the Japanese Institute for Global Environmental Strategies… [and is] a policy adviser to SNCF, France’s state-owned railway company. In India, he serves on an array of influential government bodies, including the Economic Advisory Committee to the prime minister, holds various academic posts and has publish[ed] 22 books.
Despite all these connections, no one knows how much Pachauri earns because none of the organizations listed publish his salary or fees. Whatever his income, it is likely to rise in the coming months as carbon trading and sustainable technologies take their place as the fastest growing commodity markets in the world. Bloomberg estimates the size of the U.S. carbon market alone will be between $300 billion and $2 trillion, if current cap-and-trade legislation passes the Senate.
There is little wonder Pachauri has urged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to go ”above what is going to be legislated,” as quoted in US News & World Report. The Obama administration has already announced its plans to do just that, which begs the question as to how much our own government officials stand to gain from the lucrative carbon-trading market.
YOUR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
We note that throughout your chairmanship of the IPCC you have also been chairman of Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI), founded by the multi-billion-dollar Tata steel and energy conglomerate. In 2003 the institute, which you have headed since 1981, was renamed simply “The Energy Research Institute”.
TERI was originally founded by a consortium of Tata Group companies, initially operating from the headquarters of the Tata Group, which can trace its origins to 1868, when its founder, Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata, established a trading company in Bombay to deal in opium.
The Tata group is now owner of Corus Steel, which, not long ago, closed down the steelworks in Redcar, UK, putting 1,700 workers out of their jobs. Corus stands to make billions by cashing in on now-surplus EU “carbon credits” given to the steelworks. It stands to make a great deal more, via the Clean Development Mechanism that is one spin-off from the IPCC process, by transferring steel production from the Redcar works to India.
Tata stands to gain from the Clean Development Mechanism by receiving credits for notional carbon ”savings” obtained by investing in a new steel plant in the Indian province of Orissa, which will initially produce 3 million tons of hot rolled steel – exactly the capacity of the now-closed Redcar plant.
The Clean Development Mechanism, which was established to implement the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, is administered by the UN, of which you are a senior official. You are also an advocate for the carbon trading scheme represented by the Clean Development Mechanism.
Tata, therefore, which founded the institute (now employing 700) that you head and that has been paying you substantial benefits, has taken full and very profitable advantage of the various carbon trading schemes that you, as chairman of the IPCC, have been instrumental in establishing.
We note that you do not declare this manifest and serious conflict of interest to the extent of making explicit the connection between Tata and the institute that it had established. There is no explicit mention of the connection on the institute’s official website. There is no mention of it on your personal website. There is no mention of it on your curriculum vitae.
Indeed, a year after you were appointed chairman of the IPCC, the Tata Energy Research Institute was quietly renamed as The Energy Research Institute. The only overt link now is a listing of Tata Tea Limited – a wholly-owned division of the Tata Group – as one of the institute’s corporate sponsors.
Notwithstanding the apparent softening of your institute’s sponsorship, in reality its relation with the entire multi-billion-dollar Tata Group remains unaltered, as your communication manager Annapurna Vanchewsaran, explained in January 2003 –
”We have not severed our past relationship with the Tatas. It [the name-change from Tata Energy Research Institute to The Energy Research Institute] is only for convenience.’
We also understand that you are now Director-General of The Energy and Resources Institute in the United States, where one of your board of directors is Dr. Timothy Gregoire, JP Weyerhauser Jr. Professor of Forest Management in the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University, where – if our information is correct – you have been nominated to head the newly-established Yale Climate and Energy Institute.
We also understand that you are a trustee of TERI-Europe, with offices in Albert Grove, London, where two of your fellow-trustees are Sir John Houghton, a former IPCC science chairman and founder of the UK’s Hadley Centre, and Sir Crispin Tickell, author of a book on man and the climate of which the first edition said that taxpayer funding should be made available to prevent global cooling, and the current edition says taxpayer funding should be made available to prevent global warming.
TERI-Europe has recently compiled a study on ”Developing Clean Development Mechanism projects for renewable energy technologies”, sponsored by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
In 2006 BP had announced it was funding TERI in India to the tune of $9.4 million to produce biodiesel from Jatropha Curcas, a non-edible-oil-bearing crop, which could benefit from a renewable Clean Development Mechanism credit.
The project, of which you are in charge, was expected to take 10 years and would cultivate around 8000 hectares of land currently designated as wasteland with Jatropha Curcas and install all the equipment necessary for seed crushing, oil extraction and processing to produce 9 million litres of bio-diesel per annum.
Just a year later, Tata Chemicals – a wholly owned division of the Tata Group – announced plans to ”foray into biodiesel”, disclosing that it was already in talks for securing the required raw material from ”several leading plantation groups” that were engaged in growing Jatropha and pongamia plants on a commercial scale.
Tata’s closure of the Redcar steel plant, with the loss of 1700 jobs, will help the UK to meet the emission reduction targets that are currently being negotiated – under your aegis – in Copenhagen.
We have looked for your declaration of these interests in the documents of the IPCC, particularly in its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, but we have not found them.
Our conclusion is that you have numerous substantial direct or indirect vested financial and commercial interests profiting from the emissions reduction processes that the documents produced by the IPCC under your chairmanship have triggered.
Finally, we note that TERI Biotech, a subdivision of TERI, is tendering for a UN contract worth $3 billion to clean up Kuwait after the oilfield fires. Once again, the conflict of interest is material and severe.
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>
Etiketter: Al Gore, Carbon Trading, CO2, Etanol, EU, EU Parlamentet, Global Warming Hysteri, Havsis, Havsnivå, IPCC, Isbjörnar, Journalism, Klimatmodeller, Korruption, Kyoto, Media, News, Obama, Orkaner, Pachauri, Peer review, Politik, Press, Riksdagen, Snötäcket, Temperaturdata, Traditional Media, UN, Vindkraft