CO2-hysteric Pachauri now has a blog--with a comment section

Dr R K Pachauri's Blog - Lifestyle Changes for A Healthy Planet

During the past few weeks I have spoken in public on the benefits of lower consumption of meat as a means to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). As would be expected I have, as a result, received some comments that are positive and others which amount to strong criticism. My purpose in raising this issue was only to create a debate on the subject.
...
Quite unexpectedly, I received considerable media coverage on my presentation and several comments. The ‘Observer' of the UK on September 7, 2008 carried a front page headline "UN says eat less meat to curb global warming". The UN was in no way involved with the views that I expressed, because they represent my personal views on the subject, of course within the context of lifestyle changes that the IPCC has put forward as a possible approach to mitigation of GHG emissions. Even more unexpected, and somewhat amusing, was the op-ed page article authored by Boris Johnson, the recently elected Mayor of London, which was carried in the Daily Telegraph of September 9. Prior to his election there were references to Mr. Johnson as a joker. He certainly has a sense of humour which I appreciate, particularly since he stated in his article, "No, Rajendra Pachauri, distinguished chairman of the panel, I am not going to have one meat-free day per week. No, I am not going to become a gradual vegetarian. In fact, the whole proposition is so irritating that I am almost minded to eat more meat in response."

All in all I am happy that I have been able to at least stir up a "healthy" debate linking dietary choices with the health of individuals and, of course, the health of the planet, the only one on which we humans can live at present. As a result, I have also received several invitations for speaking on the same subject in other parts of the world, and I might accept some of these to see that there is global attention provided to the excessive consumption of meat and the benefits of reducing it both in terms of human health and the health of the planet. I certainly do not expect people to alter their daily preferences, but perhaps some reflection could bring about changes that may actually result in reducing emissions of GHGs. If that were to happen I would feel satisfied that at least raising this issue was not so futile despite the Hon'ble Mayor of London threatening to eat more meat in response to my provocation. Since I believe he travels on a bicycle, he would probably have to travel a little more to burn up the extra calories! He may then even qualify for an appropriate event in the 2012 Olympics, which are to be staged in London.

Climate Change: The Fight for Asia's Future - Development Asia

[Q] What do you think of the explosion of public interest in climate change?

[Pachauri] In some sense it has been mind-boggling because one never expected this kind of response. But it also indicates that there are underlying concerns and people are making observations related to climate change. I think this level of awareness on a subject like this is something unprecedented.

[Q] Is there a possibility of overreaction by the public to climate change?

[Pachauri] We need to provide people the right information, the right data, so that their interest in the subject is kept alive and doesn’t lead to those who are ill-informed influencing their thinking in the wrong direction. There is a definite danger of over-reaction. Often when there is an extreme weather event, the immediate response is: “Oh, this must be connected to climate change.” That clearly is not the right approach. There are variations in the weather for natural reasons. That has been the case throughout the history of this planet. To immediately jump to that conclusion, and make those connections, is not helpful.
...
[Q] Should international financial institutions stop supporting coal projects?

[Pachauri] I don’t think so. I think that will be a shortsighted move. It might be politically popular to do that, but if one is in the business of trying to promote development, and given the fact that a number of countries are trying to address the problems of poverty, then merely turning away from coal projects is not the solution. What is far more effective is to think in terms of “good coal-based projects”—those that use the best technology, even if the costs are higher.

I think that one has to take a pragmatic and realistic view of this issue. Those countries that have large coal resources really can’t forego options that are dependent on the utilization of coal. How do these countries use these coal resources in the most efficient manner with the least impact on climate change? That is where development organizations play an important role in helping find these solutions and strategies.