At
UN, Climate Change Financing Discussed, IPCC Glacier and Pachauri
Questions Not Taken, China Eligibility Debated
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, February 12 -- At an ill-attended press conference held at
7:30 am Friday in UN Headquarters in New York, Secretary General Ban
Ki-moon introduced Ethiopian prime minister Meles Zenawi and his UK
counterpart Gordon Brown as chairs of an Advisory Group on Climate
Change Financing.
In a tightly controlled media Q &A session
that followed, Mr. Ban did not address the controversy swirling about
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's scientific blunders
and chairman Doctor Pachauri.
Rather, Mr. Ban took on a straw man question, about whether the snow in
New York undermined climate science. He also said that he will ask the
heads of state of Guyana and Norway to join.
Of
the four
journalists at the UN in New York who raised their hands to ask
questions, three were called on by Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky.
Before a softball question about the snow outside, one asked repeatedly
if any of the climate change financing would be given to China. As Mr.
Ban looked uncomfortable, both Prime Ministers denied it.
Despite
hand raised from the beginning of the question and answer
session to the end, Inner City Press was not allowed to ask a
question. In fact, the question had back on February 3 been asked and
dodged by Nesirky:
Inner
City Press: There has been a lot of controversy around the finding of
the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) about the
Himalayan glaciers, and they have essentially back-tracked and said
that they apologized; it was unverified information. Mr. Pachauri
has said he won’t apologize. But, I wonder what, given the
importance of climate change and the IPCC to the Secretary-General’s
agenda, what does he make of this controversy and how can the IPCC
process be reformed to not create this kind of controversy on the
issue?
Spokesperson:
The Secretary-General is obviously aware of these reports and what’s
been happening in the last few days and weeks. But, you know,
ultimately it’s for the IPCC to address this. It’s for the IPCC
to talk about this, and they have talked about this in some detail.
They have said that they regret what happened, and reaffirming their
strong commitment to a high level of performance in their reporting
and so on. So, therefore, it’s not really for the
Secretary-General to weigh in on this specific report. There are many
reports, there are many other aspects to the work on climate change,
which is absolutely vital, as you’ve mentioned; it’s one of his
priorities. So, I think that the most important thing is to focus on
the road to Mexico and how you can improve the prospects for that
meeting and what needs to be done between now and then.
Inner
City Press: [inaudible] because… in the last 24 hours… Mr.
Pachauri….
Spokesperson:
IPCC regrets, Matthew, IPCC regrets.
Question:
So, I mean, Mr. Pachauri says he wasn’t responsible for it. So, I
guess what I’m saying is, who is in charge of the agency on which
Ban Ki-moon rests his, you know, the case has been made by that
agency [inaudible].
UN's Ban and Meles Zenawi, glaciers and Pachauri not shown
Spokesperson:
No, no, Matthew, the Secretary-General does not rest his case purely
on the IPCC. There is an enormous body of evidence and information
out there from various different sources, not just from the IPCC,
however important that may be. And an error in one report does not
undermine the entire science that is clearly proven.
So
who apologized
-- the IPCC's website? To have nothing to say about the various
scandals surrounding the IPCC and Pachauri seems strange. To not
allow the question a week later is worse.
Update: in the
hallway after the press conference, away from the screen of the
Spokesperson, UN climate advisor Janos Pasztor at least took Inner City
Press' other question, on the way to Ban's next appearance, signing
compacts with some senior officials, on which we will later report --
how this UN Panel would interact with the IMF's idea of using SDRs. It
will consult, Pasztor said. Possible duplication of effort?
Also after the press conference, a senior Chinese official told
Inner City Press that the question about China taking climate change
funding was "stupid" and "insulting." He said, "We are entitled to it!"
* * *
UN's
Ban Has No Comment on Himalayan Glacier Gaffe, Doesn't Rely on IPCC
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, February 3 -- With various ice research related scandals
opening up around UN
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's signature issue of climate change,
Inner City Press on Wednesday asked his spokesman Martin Nesirky for
Ban's views on the misleading of the public about the melting of
Himalayan glaciers.
While Nesirky dodged the question, Ban's climate
change advisor later in the day told Inner City Press that Ban may
have something to say later on the topic. Meanwhile Doctor Pachauri,
with no guidance from Ban, it attacking those who question him,
refusing to answer questions or apologize. From the UN's
transcription of its February 3 noon briefing, video here:
Spokesperson
Nesirky: Last question, Matthew.
Inner
City Press: There has been a lot of controversy around the finding of
the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) about the
Himalayan glaciers, and they have essentially back-tracked and said
that they apologized; it was unverified information. Mr. Pachauri
has said he won’t apologize. But, I wonder what, given the
importance of climate change and the IPCC to the Secretary-General’s
agenda, what does he make of this controversy and how can the IPCC
process be reformed to not create this kind of controversy on the
issue?
Spokesperson:
The Secretary-General is obviously aware of these reports and what’s
been happening in the last few days and weeks. But, you know,
ultimately it’s for the IPCC to address this. It’s for the IPCC
to talk about this, and they have talked about this in some detail.
They have said that they regret what happened, and reaffirming their
strong commitment to a high level of performance in their reporting
and so on. So, therefore, it’s not really for the
Secretary-General to weigh in on this specific report. There are many
reports, there are many other aspects to the work on climate change,
which is absolutely vital, as you’ve mentioned; it’s one of his
priorities. So, I think that the most important thing is to focus on
the road to Mexico and how you can improve the prospects for that
meeting and what needs to be done between now and then.
Inner
City Press: [inaudible] because… in the last 24 hours… Mr.
Pachauri….
Spokesperson:
IPCC regrets, Matthew, IPCC regrets.
Question:
So, I mean, Mr. Pachauri says he wasn’t responsible for it. So, I
guess what I’m saying is, who is in charge of the agency on which
Ban Ki-moon rests his, you know, the case has been made by that
agency
UN's Ban and Pachauri, no one responsible for Glacier-Gate, novel
Spokesperson:
No, no, Matthew, the Secretary-General does not rest his case purely
on the IPCC. There is an enormous body of evidence and information
out there from various different sources, not just from the IPCC,
however important that may be. And an error in one report does not
undermine the entire science that is clearly proven.
So who apologized
-- the IPCC's website? To have nothing to say about the various
scandals surrounding the IPCC and Pachauri seems strange. It's why
some say Ban is now shifted to rolling the dice on a trip to North
Korea -- our next story, forthcoming.
Footnote:
The UN's and Ban's climate unit under Janos Pasztor, which was told
there was no room for it in the UN's Temporary North Lawn Conference
Building where Ban has his office, is now looking at space in the
Alcoa Building on 48th Street, Inner City Press is told. For now,
they are left behind in the nearly empty UN skyscaper where asbestos
removal has already begun. Meanwhile, Pachauri has wished asbestos on
his critics....
* * *
, 
