Do you believe that climate change is a reversible process? That all the preventive steps talked about will actually lead to a serious reversal of this process and get us where we were, say 20-25 years ago?

Initially, we must arrest the problem and then over a period of time — this may take two centuries or longer — suck out some of the greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. This means greater afforestation and developing technologies which can capture the carbon and store it. Along with a whole range of allied changes, including those in lifestyle, the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will gradually come down.

Prior to industrialisation, the concentration of carbon dioxide was 280 parts per million (ppm) which has now gone up to 387 ppm. Methane levels are up from 700 ppb to 1,745 ppb post-industrialisation and development. Gases like carbon dioxide are long-lasting and won’t go away easily. We have to ensure that the global temperature increase is limited to what G-20 or G-8 have agreed to, say 2ºC. Because current national commitments would lead to a 3.9ºC increase and we will be left with little choice to bring it down. IPCC has found that a temperature increase of 1.5 to 2.5ºC and above can threaten 20 to 30 per cent of the species that we have examined. If we aren’t able to stabilise temperature to below 2ºC, then the entire ecological balance will be disturbed. We must restore the climate to a level of certainty and stability that would make it possible for human society to function as well as let all species survive.

Human intervention has only led to imbalance all around. Our rivers are terribly polluted. Air pollution in world cities has reached dangerous proportions, particularly so in the rapidly growing economies. For the developed countries, the problem is largely the impact of their emissions on the global scenario. We have clearly deforested some of our richest forest reserves, be it Amazon or Indonesia. If we look at the overall ecological footprints of human society according to rough estimates, we had exceeded the capacity of our eco-system to absorb the pollutant load way back in the early ’80s. I think in the euphoria of industrialisation and the great benefits of the steam engine, automobiles and then other goods and services that made life so much easier, we lost sight of what we were doing to the eco system.

Another area that is causing me concern is the increasing consumption of animal protein —meat products — even in countries like China. Earlier eating chicken used to be an indulgence. Today, poultry products have proliferated in such a manner that they are no longer a luxury.

How serious is the emission of methane from poultry products?

Methane comes from the body of all animals. But the biggest problem is the ecological cost of the global meat cycle. First you cut forests to create pasture land. So you take away the lungs of the earth. Grazing cattle release methane on a large scale; some say that the average dairy cow expels as much methane as a car in a day. Plus, you feed foodgrains to livestock. In growing them, you use chemical fertilisers and pesticides, the manufacture and processing of which releases greenhouse gases. Then you kill these animals and refrigerate them, you transport them to various countries in refrigerated ships. So you are using huge quantities of energy and adding to the carbon footprint. Then the meat goes to warehouses, retail shops, where the story is the same. Even at homes, we have started using bigger refrigerators. If you assess the entire meat cycle from cradle to grave and beyond till you consume it, the impact on the environment is huge. If we cut down on meat consumption, we’ll be healthy, so would the planet.

I have friends in the US who eat meat five times a week, which is asking for trouble. Happily things are changing. A month ago, Sir Paul McCartney and I addressed the European Parliament in Brussels — he is a diehard vegetarian and I became a vegetarian about eight years ago — and we were surprised by meat consumption patterns.

Two years ago, I gave a talk on this subject in the Belgian city of Ghent. There were about 800 people but it led to a movement whereby the city has now declared a weekly meatless day. Sir Paul and I are trying to convince the European Parliament to come up with a meatless day too. This is only a beginning.

What can we do to incorporate green philosophies in our own lives?

We just need to be conscious of little things. Like everytime you leave a room, switch off the lights. As children, we were taught to do that. The worst culprits are hotels. The air-conditioning is so powerful that you need blankets to sleep at night, even in summer. I have been saying that hotels should install a meter in each room and charge the guest separately for using the AC. That would make every person conscious of power consumption. You have to send a market signal to make people realise that all these things we are accustomed to are imposing a huge burden on our natural resources.

I feel this acutely because I was born in Nainital, which was pristine. I cannot recognise it now. The Corbett National Park was a different universe altogether. We didn’t have motorable roads. I am not saying we didn’t need development or roads but in the bargain we cut down the forest a lot. We didn’t realise the damage we were doing to our future generations. We didn’t think of sustainable practices, just took the soft option. We cannot borrow from the future anymore to feed our demands. Live well but be responsible.

How close are we to developing alternative fuel technologies so that our production cycles can be maintained at current levels without adding to pollution? Will they be economically viable?

I would say two things in response. First, there are fortunately very significant differences in the way people live in developed countries. In comparison to North America, Japan and some parts of Europe, people in high income countries of Scandinavia are extremely conscious of the way they use their energy. You can pursue lifestyles that are really the best anywhere in the world and that too, with efficient use of energy. Second, it’s unfortunate that after 1985, when oil prices crashed, we gave up funding of research and development. Then, till about eight years ago, oil prices were $10 a barrel and everybody thought that the wolf had gone away and we didn’t have to worry. So the world has lost a quarter century during which we could have invested and developed renewable energy technologies, good enough to compete with conventional forms.

But there are some interesting things that are happening here. For example, we are working with the Clinton Climate Initiative to set up two solar thermal power plants of 3,500 MW.

What is solar thermal power?

You have a concentrated glass device which harnesses solar energy at the focus of a disc and you get very high temperatures. It’s like using magnifying glass to burn a piece of paper. You need a large area to set up such a plant; Rajasthan and parts of Gujarat are ideal. At a seven per cent rate of interest, you can produce electricity at more or less the same price as coal-based thermal power. The big benefit is that all the equipment of these plants can be fabricated in India. Our labour costs being what they are, we can really outstrip any other country in the world in producing capital equipment for this type of plant. I think you need to do R&D and exploit economies of scale by which you can bring the cost down. I think the government has to jumpstart this by providing subsidies in a sensible manner. This will put us on a path that will take us in a different direction altogether.

We are trying to produce biofuels from sugarcane and ethanol in which we have no comparative advantage in the country. We don’t have the land nor the climate. Jatropha is more viable locally. It can be grown in wasteland with very little rainfall and requires very simple processing for use as diesel substitutes in tractors and pumps. The second generation of biofuels is more promising. You can convert cellulose, wood and agriculture waste into liquid fuels. Countries like Norway and Sweden convert a lot of their wood planted on a sustainable basis into liquid fuels. We can use all our agriculture residue, which farmers in Punjab and Haryana are burning as nuisance. Plus, there is wind and nuclear energy. I think all of these can displace fossil fuel on a large scale.

At my institute, researchers are working on using microbes to produce methane from coal. A lot of our coal reserves is at depths and locations where mining is impossible. Therefore, if we can convert it into gas and use it, it will give us a much higher efficiency and lower emissions. I think we have to look at a lot of innovations. The world and this country have to spend much more on them.

I don’t see any reason why we can’t. The world has forked out $2.7 to 3 trillion in the last year-and-a-half to revive the world economy. Only a few hundred billion are required for developing alternative energy sources. If we realise the seriousness of the situation, then clearly as rational societies we would make that kind of investment. Only, we are not doing that.

What of the US commitment to work with other countries towards jointly mobilising $100 billion a year to address climate change needs of developing countries?

That is up to 2020. But then, we have to wait for 10 more years. It all depends upon where the governments and companies have to invest. As of now, the companies don’t have a clear signal that we have to move to a low carbon future. Otherwise, the GEs of the world would have spent large sums of money and developed alternative technologies overnight. You can mobilise resources on a vast scale for solutions. But for that we have to mobilise the industry.

Incentivise them...

We have to provide them with big incentives.

...And disincentivise those who don’t.

Absolutely. The IPCC has made it clear that the most effective instrument is to place a price on carbon. Carbon-incentive fuels must cost more than the ones that are not.

Much of Indian fossil fuel is coal. We’ll come under a lot of pressure if we cut emissions. What is clean coal and how quickly will it emerge as a significant energy resource?

Frankly, there is no such thing like clean coal. What you get is increased efficiency. The only clean coal technology is carbon capture and storage. There are huge gaps at our geological sites where you can store carbon. The technology is not developed yet and we need to do a lot of R&D over the next decade or so. A few companies are using it but are not active enough to commercialise it.

I have no hesitation in saying that we in India have been stupid about carbon capture and storage. What will happen over a course of time is that other countries will develop this technology and we’ll have to buy it from them. We have several sites here where we can easily try out this technology. I don’t see what we stand to lose.

What about policy guidelines?

There is no dearth of legislation in our country but there is a problem in implementation and enforcement. Take sponge iron plants, for instance. They are major pollutants, especially because they are close to virgin forests and cause enormous problems to local inhabitants, they have to use filters. Yet most plants don’t have them. According to the Ganga Action Plan, leather industries are supposed to treat their sewage. But half the time, there is no power to run purification plants, so untreated sewage flows into the Ganga. These are some genuine and practical problems.

Any suggestions on how to tackle the problem of enforcement?

We need a complete overhaul of our governance systems. Most of our monitoring bodies like the CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board) or SPCB (State Pollution Control Board) are functioning on a top-downward basis. Why can’t we empower local communities and give them the responsibility of ensuring their own good? Every town or village has some distinguished citizens who people look up to. Make them your watchdogs. The laws and regulations can come from the Centre but until you make implementation a community mission, you cannot bring about a change. You will only increase corruption.

Besides, our environmental studies need to be made more effective. They have to be interesting and interactive. Let the kids go out and see the gravity of the situation and come up with their own solutions.

We really need to make a quick change, otherwise we will run out of time. The great American dream is turning out to be a global nightmare. We have to break away from that. This can only happen if we start educating children early enough and talk about new values. Recently, I read an interesting article, I think in the New York Times, which questioned the obsession with consumerism. The article argued in favour of spending a little more time with each other than merely fiddling with gadgets. From the 1940s and ’50s, even romance got automated; among teenagers it was associated with going on drives. But I think romance was richer in Jane Austen’s time, there was much excitement in looking for corners or places to sit by a river.

Are you an optimist?

Yes, I am. I find it very exciting to be involved in this whole business. One does get angry and impatient at times, but it is really a question of whether you look at a glass half full or half empty. I feel encouraged by the amount of awareness that has grown in recent years. Of that, there is no doubt. Even on climate change, since our fourth assessment report came out in 2007, there has been a major increase in awareness levels and the vested interests are worried. So now they are even attacking me with lies. There’s money behind it.

There has been a huge campaign that glaciers have not retracted to the extent you predicted and that you pressed the panic button all too soon...

One has to fight vested interests. That’s inevitable. But on the subject, there are thousands of papers. And the researcher in question had not even put a specific date. Having said that, let me tell you that glaciers are bearing the brunt of climate change. And this doesn’t mean we forget about preserving them.

Throughout history, whenever a new body of knowledge comes, it threatens the inertia in some people and thinking in others. The change of inertia is not easy, it takes time. I remain optimistic because I think change is in the right direction. My only concern is that the change is really slow, we have to move much faster. Otherwise the impact is going to be more serious and the coming generations are not going to forgive us.

How did you react to the announcement of the Nobel Prize?

I remember I was having an interactive session with Reuters and one of the journalists asked, “How would you feel if you receive the Nobel Prize?” and I asked, “What are you talking about?” He was surprised. “Don’t you know the IPCC has been nominated for the Nobel Prize?”

Any way, I checked Google and found they had listed 183 nominees. So I thought I had little chance. But people kept coming back to me and the second time I went to Google I found that betting sites had taken over. Then closer to the announcement, I got a telephone call from a friend in Oslo. He said there was a 97 per cent chance that Al Gore and I would be awarded the prize jointly. Now, the custom is that half-an-hour before the announcement, the Director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute calls you up to inform you about the Prize (The Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded by a Swedish organisation). And he did. He called at my office and identified himself as a journalist from Norway. He did that to keep the news from leaking. He asked: “Are there journalists around?” My office replied, “They are swarming all over the place.” True, the media had already found out but I was non-committal as I had not received that call! When I came back from lunch, my office told me that the Norwegian ambassador was coming over and I knew the award was happening.

How do you rate the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit and where do we need to go from here?

The build-up to Copenhagen was certainly more encouraging than the results would justify. At least, we have an accord among a limited number of countries. We have a document to which the US and some major developing countries are a party and it is now for us to see that we build on this. It is upon us to create inclusivity, to ensure that proposals of clean development mechanisms and emission cuts are converted into binding commitments. The one thing of concern is that the US is still lagging behind. Take the Kerry Boxer Bill on reducing the percentage of emission cuts, for instance, which is now with the Senate. In my view, if we can get the legislation through in the US, it will create confidence all around that the world is willing to act on climate change. Then it will give us enough time to work on an agreement that could give a satisfactory outcome in Mexico.

Why is an agreement important? In the IPCC fourth assessment report, we had clearly brought out the growing impact of climate change, which would make the lives of hundreds and millions of people difficult in the future. This includes the small island states and low-lying coastal areas of Bangladesh. The sea level rise in the last century was about 17 cm. If we do not take action in this century, then it will threaten the lives and livelihood of a large number of people. The impact of climate change on agriculture is serious. We have projected that several African countries (in the sub-Saharan region), will suffer declines of up to 50 per cent in agricultural yields of certain crops as early as 2020. In our own part of the world, melting glaciers, sooner or later, will affect the flow in our river systems which would have implications not only on surface water and its availability but also on groundwater recharge because rivers perform a very important function of replenishing water tables. As it is, we are exploiting our groundwater resources unsustainably.

Climate change has already had an impact in terms of extreme events. We are going to suffer more floods, droughts, waves and extreme precipitation. Be it the deluge in Mumbai or the heavy snowfall in Europe, each episode has damaged property and threatened lives. We have no choice but to move quickly towards limiting the increase in global temperatures.