For just about 20 years now, the world has taken increasing note of its changing climate marked by global warming; and looked hard for ways to check this process and curb its impact. That long-drawn and painstaking process will be in global limelight when the World Climate Conference takes place in Copenhagen. It will be attended by official delegations from more than 170 countries who are party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Many of these delegations will be led by heads-of-government from the participating countries. President Barack Obama will be there, as will Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, along with many notable peers. The key objective of these participants would be to try and create the global set of rules to prevent climate change and global warming. Dr. R.K. Pachauri is eminently counted among the world's leading experts on climate change, as well as for his work and research in mapping the problem of global warming, and its mitigation. As part of his leadership, he heads the United Nation's Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Delhi-based TERI. Talking to Anupam Goswami, Dr. Pachauri details his prognosis of the possible outcomes of the global climate meet being held in Copenhagen, in December; as well as his assessment of the response from the corporate sector in the face of the overall problem of global warming. How does the gravity of climate change and global warming stack up before the future of this world? I think every person and institution with any sense of responsibility has accepted the reality and gravity of climate change. The Fourth Assessment Report of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has pretty irrefutable evidence of global warming. Within this century, by the year 2100, global climate will increase between 1,1 and 6.4 degrees Celsius. We have a range of credible projections that show that even at the lower end of this range, most parts of the world will be severely impacted by the processes of such warming; with very considerable stress on ecosystems and food security. How do you rate the corporate response to the challenge of climate change from your experience as the head of the United Nations IPCC, as well as at TERI? To put it mildly, it is totally inadequate in the face of responsibility for the problem and the challenge of solutions. This is not to deny that some companies have woken up to the problem, and are in the process of crafting their response. But by and large, we are seeing a case of 'greenwashing' where corporates are absolving themselves of the real responsibility by some token action, which is aimed just to acquire an environmental rating. It is clearly obvious that far more has to be done. On the other hand, this state of affairs also implies that the some of the sincere efforts on the part of the corporate sector must be lauded for their sentiment and sense of responsibility, at least. Do you sense a greater readiness on the part of industry and business to undertake mitigating action as their countries and governments prepare for the Copenhagen Climate Summit this December? It would be fair and logical to recognise that countries and their governments, as well as other sectors, are rather distracted from the issue of mitigating climate change at present. There is general economic stress around the world, which is quite severe in many developed countries too. So, it would be fair to say that all kinds of stakeholders would welcome some directions from the Copenhagen Summit, but would probably be reluctant to embark on those strategies straightaway. But what kind of directions could be expected from the Copenhagen Summit? Personally, my assessment is that while the Copenhagen Summit might come with a strong framework for confronting climate change and global warming, it will probably not yield a final and decisive agreement among nations. To that extent, the real work on adopting common and consensual multilateral strategies will actually begin after the Copenhagen Summit. Obviously, corporate leaders will be influenced by this delay. On the other hand, the Copenhagen Summit will create decisive opinion - if not action - on our future with hydrocarbon energy, and the sustainability of our use of fossil fuels. Such things will be spelt out in much greater detail there. So, the real action on global warming will start after the Copenhagen Summit? I am coming around to that view. There is little possibility of a firm global deal happening at Copenhagen. That meet will define the objectives that we have to work towards as nations and governments, and the role of diverse institutions, including corporate organisations, in attaining these objectives. But the actual commitments on the part of responsible entities will be negotiated after the summit. Does this setting imply that governments as well as corporate organisations would have to go on a further learning curve, which might delay mitigating action? There is a distinct possibility of such an outcome. But let me put it this way. If the Copenhagen Summit does not produce binding agreements, it is not the end of the world. Even if it establishes the absolute imperative of the new directions that the world must take to counter the impacts of climate change, I would be more than happy. In that sense, I am looking upon the Copenhagen meet to act as a 'doorway' to our common future. How much would the world move away from hydrocarbon energy in the foreseeable future after the Copenhagen Summit? That is not happening in a hurry. Countries and companies around the world are fiercely competing for access to fossil fuels, and access to new hydrocarbon resources. The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC projects that fossil fuels will be the dominant source of global energy until 2030. This view is substantiated by research at institutions such as the International Energy Agency. Our current actions are all about curbing that dependence with a view to turn consumption back at some point in the future; and to start taking compensatory action to mitigate some of the impacts that are already evident. What kind of institutions could have a positive influence on the outcome of the Copenhagen meet? Well, certain countries and societies have the abiding potential to make a strong impact. Take the case of USA. You may say whatever about its past and continuing role in global warming - and there is certainly a case of very high responsibility here -but you also have to acknowledge that country's capacity to adopt new ways of life, once it is convinced about them. Of all the countries, it is the US that has the potential in public will, resources and technologies to act as a catalyst. Its president always has a global influence too. Then you must acknowledge the potential of some nations of the European Union, which have a very high degree of public awareness about the impending crisis of climate change, as well as a desire to participate in a global mitigating effort. If these countries could bring a creative and constructive responsibility to Copenhagen, we would definitely see some very positive results. Yet, how much time does the American public and President Obama have for giving attention to the Copenhagen Summit in particular, and climate change in general? President Obama has gone further than any of his predecessors in appreciating the causal circumstances of climate change, as well as the solutions that are required by collective as well as individual actions by countries around the world. Nobody can deny that he has captured global attention - as well as that in his own country - as a leader with vision and intellectual understanding of such issues. Yet, I agree President Obama and the American public are preoccupied with equally urgent domestic issues. Indeed, one of my earlier points was that governments and publics around the world are too distracted with current economic problems and the immediate future, to bother about what might happen in the medium term and the distant future. The key responsibility of the Copenhagen Summit is to have a radical and catalytic impact on that complacency. How do you think the differences between developed and developing countries come to the fore at Copenhagen? The concerns of the developing countries are very valid, but everybody would have to agree to some national mitigation targets in some way. The difficulty, of course, is to get everybody to agree on the principles on which these national targets are to be adopted. That is the real challenge before all of us. What can India and China do to show their commitment to mitigating action directed at global warming and greenhouse emissions? A lot will depend on the National Action Plans that such countries bring to the table in Copenhagen. The interesting thing is that while China is a guzzler for fossil fuels, it has also adopted very ambitious targets as far as renewable energy technologies are concerned. It is already recognised among the world's leading investors in these sectors. I personally believe that India too should go to Copenhagen showcasing an ambitious target in renewable energy, say a capacity of 20,000 MW of solar energy to be created by 2020. It is certainly doable, and it will create a favourable impression. Yet, much of this clean tech is too expensive for developing countries, including the solar energy option. As I said it can be done, and the cost of such sustainable zero-carbon energy use is approaching energy technologies based on fossil fuels. What could Prime Minister Manmohan Singh specifically carry to Copenhagen to show the credibility of India as a responsible negotiator? The gathering at Copenhagen will be impressed if India announces any ambitious action programme along the lines we have discussed. The PM should be able to demonstrate a personal as well as a national commitment to solar energy, to efficient public transport systems, to a massive programme for energy-efficient buildings, and a strategy to reduce the carbon footprints of our cities. That will create a firm impression about India's sense of responsibility in the face of climate change, and draw favourable attention to its negotiating positions. ?