Ich habe nur eine Frage: ist es eigentlich wahr, dass die USA (Bush Jr. Administration) damals forderte, Robert Watson im IPCC abzulösen und dafür Rajendra Pachauri zu nehmen?
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Watson_%28scientist%29 (weitere links dann denn da)
und Zitat: Andrew Revkin writing for the New York Times described Watson as an "outspoken advocate of the idea that human actions—mainly burning coal and oil—are contributing to global warming and must be changed to avert environmental upheavals."[3]
In April 2002 the United States pressed for and won his replacement by Rajendra Pachauri as IPCC chair. According to New Scientist, "The oil industry seems to be behind the move." The industry campaign to oust Watson had begun days after George W. Bush's inauguration in January 2001, with a memo to the White House from Randy Randol of oil giant ExxonMobil asking "Can Watson be replaced now at the request of the US?"[4]
Das soll nix gegen Pachauri sein, aber es zeigt doch, dass der Einfluss auf das IPCC doch nicht gerade einseitig ist, diplomatisch ausgedrückt.
@ghost Pachauri was elected by acclamation. Developing countries supported him because he has a brown skin. European countries supported him because he has a green image. The USA supported him because they had done their homework and correctly predicted that he would mess up.
Quite good questions in my opinion. The answers were predictable. I still think that the IPCC missed a very good opportunity in October to change its chairman and so indicate its disposition for a fresh re-start. I got to watch some interviews of Watson only recently, related to Climategate, and in my opinion he would have been a much better IPCC chairman. It would be interesting if Wikileaks contained some references about the manoeuvres of the Bush Jr. administration to replace him with Pachauri .
@Eduardo The Spiegel had some notes on climate and wikileaks. In particular Jonathan Pershing (US chief negotiator 2008) offered some money to countries like the Maldives to buy their agreement in Copenhagen. I guess that is called "they did their homeworks".
@Eduardo To the country (check the story here http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,733630,00.html :
"For example, Pershing more-or-less forced an ambassador from the Maldives to take millions of dollars in assistance. He said the ambassador should simply state exactly how much his Indian Ocean archipelago needed. This, Pershing claimed, would increase "the likelihood" that Congress would quickly approve the funds. "Other nations would then come to realize that there are advantages to be gained by compliance," a US memo noted.")
The 100 bill is for buying these countres as well with some slight differences in style and taste
1) Everyone knows 2) The 100 Bill will not be paid since nobody really agreed on paying. But Pershing would have paid the Maldives. So it was a more real deal. 3) Its bilateral to reach to a precise political agreement.
But I agree it's a question of taste. What is an agreement and what is corrpution?
Ich habe nur eine Frage: ist es eigentlich wahr, dass die USA (Bush Jr. Administration) damals forderte, Robert Watson im IPCC abzulösen und dafür Rajendra Pachauri zu nehmen?
ReplyDeleteQuelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Watson_%28scientist%29 (weitere links dann denn da)
und Zitat:
Andrew Revkin writing for the New York Times described Watson as an "outspoken advocate of the idea that human actions—mainly burning coal and oil—are contributing to global warming and must be changed to avert environmental upheavals."[3]
In April 2002 the United States pressed for and won his replacement by Rajendra Pachauri as IPCC chair. According to New Scientist, "The oil industry seems to be behind the move." The industry campaign to oust Watson had begun days after George W. Bush's inauguration in January 2001, with a memo to the White House from Randy Randol of oil giant ExxonMobil asking "Can Watson be replaced now at the request of the US?"[4]
Das soll nix gegen Pachauri sein, aber es zeigt doch, dass der Einfluss auf das IPCC doch nicht gerade einseitig ist, diplomatisch ausgedrückt.
@ghost
ReplyDeletePachauri was elected by acclamation. Developing countries supported him because he has a brown skin. European countries supported him because he has a green image. The USA supported him because they had done their homework and correctly predicted that he would mess up.
Video also on YouTube:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0adQgrAPZxc
Altogether a rather tame interview. Wiedemann asked the right questions, but allowed Pachauri to hide behind bureaucratic language.
ReplyDeleteQuite good questions in my opinion. The answers were predictable. I still think that the IPCC missed a very good opportunity in October to change its chairman and so indicate its disposition for a fresh re-start. I got to watch some interviews of Watson only recently, related to Climategate, and in my opinion he would have been a much better IPCC chairman. It would be interesting if Wikileaks contained some references about the manoeuvres of the Bush Jr. administration to replace him with Pachauri .
ReplyDelete@Eduardo
ReplyDeleteThe Spiegel had some notes on climate and wikileaks. In particular Jonathan Pershing (US chief negotiator 2008) offered some money to countries like the Maldives to buy their agreement in Copenhagen.
I guess that is called "they did their homeworks".
Georg,
ReplyDeletedid they offer money to the delegates or to the countries? The 100 bill.offered in Cancun is also meant to buy the countries, aren't they ?
@Eduardo
ReplyDeleteTo the country (check the story here http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,733630,00.html :
"For example, Pershing more-or-less forced an ambassador from the Maldives to take millions of dollars in assistance. He said the ambassador should simply state exactly how much his Indian Ocean archipelago needed. This, Pershing claimed, would increase "the likelihood" that Congress would quickly approve the funds. "Other nations would then come to realize that there are advantages to be gained by compliance," a US memo noted.")
The 100 bill is for buying these countres as well with some slight differences in style and taste
1) Everyone knows
2) The 100 Bill will not be paid since nobody really agreed on paying. But Pershing would have paid the Maldives. So it was a more real deal.
3) Its bilateral to reach to a precise political agreement.
But I agree it's a question of taste. What is an agreement and what is corrpution?
Is wikileaks the climategate of (climate) diplomacy? Scientists are corrupt, politicians and diplomats are corrupt - all bitches except...who?
ReplyDelete"all bitches except...who?"
ReplyDeleteMama.