Conflicted Roles Over Renewables

opinion & comment

COMMENTARY: Conflicted roles over renewables Mark Lynas As another Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report is mired in controversy, it’s time for the influential body to uphold its own neutrality standards.

nce seen as the unchallengeable To be effective, the IPCC must be into mainstream media outlets — some of guardian of the climate science independent and it must be policy-neutral. which had uncritically repeated the 80% by Oconsensus, the Intergovernmental Yet it turned out that a Greenpeace 2050 figure in their original coverage of the Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has had a campaigner was in a pole position in the SRREN launch. And it wasn’t just the sceptics rough ride in recent years. Although few in SRREN, which gave the appearance that he who were troubled: well-known climate the field doubt that the vast majority of its might have had unfair influence over the scientists privately admit they are aghast work has been rigorous and thorough, there content of the report, through the inclusion that Working Group III could, in the words have also been mistakes — which are often of material which had originally been of one, do “anything so stupid” as to allow eagerly seized on by critics. ‘Himalayagate’ — commissioned and published by Greenpeace. the top line in the SRREN to come from a in which the IPCC erroneously warned that At issue was the selection of four ‘illustrative Greenpeace report. most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt scenarios’ in chapter 10 of the SRREN, one of This issue will not go away, and means by 2035 — was a minor flaw seen in the which was based on a Greenpeace campaign that additional scrutiny will be placed on context of the whole 2007 fourth assessment report called Energy (R)evolution, a later the IPCC’s upcoming special report on report. However, the immense controversy version of which was also published in the disasters and extreme events — sure to be surrounding the ‘Climategate’ drama of leaked journal Energy Efficiency. The author of the controversial anyway for genuinely scientific University of East Anglia e-mails elevated report, Greenpeace International’s Renewable reasons. It is important to note that conflict the error to a higher status and put the IPCC Energy Director, Sven Teske, was a lead of interest does not need to be proven for firmly under the media spotlight. author on chapter 10 of the SRREN. it to be an issue — merely the appearance Most of the problems the IPCC has That a Greenpeace campaigner was put in of conflict of interest is sufficient to require encountered involve a lack of professionalism. charge of reviewing and highlighting his own action, as Working Group I’s guidance This is perhaps unsurprising for a body that work within Working Group III might never note makes clear. Indeed, the note gives the depends on the willing donation of large have been seen as particularly important if specific example of a situation where “an amounts of time by a wide group of hundreds it were not for the decision by the IPCC’s LA [lead author] is on the board of an NGO of experts with little to spare. However, for communications staff to use the Greenpeace- [non-governmental organization] which is an organization with enormous worldwide originated figure as the top-line conclusion of an advocacy group”. However rigorous the influence on governments and the United its press release, which then went on to grab internal review procedures, this document Nations, reforms were clearly needed. Last media headlines around the world. This figure makes clear that this kind of conflict of year the InterAcademy Council recommended suggests that nearly 80% of the world’s energy interest cannot be tolerated: “The assessment root-and-branch structural changes, including could be supplied by renewables by 2050, an must be ‘neutral with respect to policy’ and the setting up of an executive committee, the optimistic — but not unrealistic — prospect therefore an IPCC author cannot be, at establishment of a full-time executive director that was seized on gleefully by environmental the same time, in a leading position of an and term limits for IPCC chairs. groups, including Greenpeace. When it later NGO working towards specific policies.” Just as importantly, the InterAcademy emerged, more than a month later, that the It suggests as a possible action that the Council also urged the setting up of rigorous figure had come from a campaign conflict-of-interest policies to apply to all group rather than being staff and authors in the IPCC process. This solely an independent IPCC has now begun to happen. Working Group I conclusion, the SRREN began of the IPCC, which focuses on the physical to lose credibility. science of climate change, has operationalized What was especially a conflict of interest ‘guidance note’, and the noteworthy was that no Abu Dhabi IPCC plenary on 10–13 May journalists noticed this agreed that a conflict-of-interest policy apparent conflict of interest. should apply across the board. Unfortunately, Instead it was spotted by a however, the IPCC Special Report on bete noire of climate scientists Renewable Energy Sources and Climate and environmentalists — the Change Mitigation (SRREN) — a project of Canadian ‘climate auditor’ Working Group III, which was also launched Steve McIntyre. Soon, sceptic at the Abu Dhabi meeting — has now been blogs around the world undermined by allegations of just such a had picked up the story,

conflict of interest. which then also made it © MARCROBERTSCARTOONS.COM

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | ADVANCE ONLINE PUBLICATION | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange 1

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved opinion & comment proposed lead author should “resign from the would diminish the credibility of the whole less likely to trust the IPCC again. Given board of this NGO.” IPCC — this situation should not be allowed the critical role the IPCC has played in Judged by these standards, therefore, to arise again. the past and must continue to play in Greenpeace’s Sven Teske should not The IPCC has another lesson to learn the future, it is surely vital that steps have been a lead author in a report too. It must release the summaries for are taken to address these problems — about renewables. Moreover, it could policymakers (SPMs), full reports and before the next special report is finalized be argued that the potential conflict-of- press releases all at the same time. It took and published. ❐ interest situation was worse even than more than a month for the source of the the hypothetical example given above, SRREN’s 80% by 2050 figure to come Mark Lynas is a UK-based climate change because Teske’s own work was accidentally to light, because the SPM was released commentator and author of The God Species: How or deliberately given a high profile within to the media on 9 May, whereas the full the Planet Can Survive the Age of Humans and Six the SRREN and the press release that report with references was not made Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet. promoted it. Unless Working Group III available until 14 June. Journalists were e-mail: [email protected] is to apply permanently lower standards angry because they felt they had not been to itself than Working Group I — which given access to the full truth, and may be Published online: 17 July 2011

2 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | ADVANCE ONLINE PUBLICATION | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange