On “Deep Decarbonization,” Governments Not Involved, At UN Ban Ki-moon Speaks But Takes No Questions, FUNCA Asks Why

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 8 -- When UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon came to “launch,” as the UN puts it, the“Pathways to Deep Decarbonization” report at 11 am on July 8 it was a decidedly one-way launch: Ban spoke but did not take any questions. 

  Why not? 

 Ban's public schedule did not list another appointment until 12:50 pm, with new envoy on Western Sahara Kim Bolduc. So why not?

  Nevertheless the French minister and ambassador on climate negotiations Laurence Tubiana who remained behind thanked Ban. Inner City Press asked Tubiana what relation, if any, there is between the 15 country-specific sections of the report and the governments of those countries.

  Tubiana began that “each country was independent” -- then Jeffrey Sachs, also on the panel, corrected her, Country not government. She agreed, saying that later these reports would spark a dialogue in countries, including with the governments.

  Inner City Press asked about countries -- governments -- effectively censoring 70% of the “Summary for Policymakers” of the most recent IPCC report. Will that process be allowed to continue in connection with the climate negotiations upcoming in France? We'll see.

  On nuclear power, it was Sachs who spoke and not the two representatives of France, global promoter - and miner - for nuclear power.

  The UN as usual set-aside the first question for its UN Censorship Alliance, whose head Pamela Falk asked about a proposal by Henry “Hank” Paulson, whom she identified as a former US Treasury Secretary. Uh, and Goldman Sachs, no? The new Free UN Coalition for Access then thanked the panelist -- Ban Ki-moon as noted had already left -- and asked about governments' censorship.

  At the end Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric delayed the noon briefing for fifteen minutes to allow French ambassador Tubiana to interactive with... France 24, among others. The Free UN Coalition for Access has asked that the policy of when and for whom / which countries UN briefings are delayed or postponed should be transparent and even-handed. Watch this site.

   

At UN, Ban and Pachauri Take No Questions on IPCC and Outside Income, Transparency Charade

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/ipcc2pachauri031010.html

UNITED NATIONS, March 10 -- Seeking to dampen controversies about the Inter governmental Panel on Climate Change's use of NGO press releases as science and about IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri's outside income from sources like Deutsche Bank, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Pachauri "encountered" the Press on Wednesday.

It was a one way encounter. Each man made a statement, each praising the other and the IPCC -- and then they left the stakeout, taking not a single question. Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe was left telling reporters, no questions, no questions. Video here.

The UN press corps was essentially used as a prop or as extras, to make it appear to viewers not paying attention that this was a legitimate press conference or Q&A. In fact, as put by one climate change activist, this was mere propaganda, like "something out of North Korea."

Or perhaps Tiger Woods is the more apt analogy, given the "racy" novel recently published by Mr. Pachauri, another correspondent noted, in which an aging Indian scientist flies around the world bedding young followers.

Back on December 21, Inner City Press asked Ban about Pachauri's presumptive financial conflicts of interest and failure to disclose, but Mr. Ban did not answer the question.

Later, Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky said that Ban did not have to respond to the controversies surrounding the IPCC, and that Pachauri would answer questions himself.

On Wednesday, Pachauri did not allow or answer any questions, and neither did Ban Ki-moon. What was first advertised as a sit down press conference at 12:30 was converted into a stand up stakeout from which the two men left immediately after speaking. So much for transparency. Watch this site.

Footnote: while refusing to take or answer questions in supposed press encounters, the UN is holding two separate events for journalists in the next five days. Inner City Press will not be present at the first, but may report on the second, unless questions are taken and answered before then. Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/ipcc2pachauri031010.html

UN Ban Defends IPCC Report, No Comment on Pachauri, Derides Comparisons

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/ban3ipcc022410.html

UNITED NATIONS, February 24 -- Three weeks after the UN told the Press that "it's not really for the Secretary-General to weigh in on this specific report" of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Ban Ki-moon pointedly urged member states to "reject the last-ditch attempts by climate skeptics to derail negotiations by exaggerating shortcomings in the [IPCC] fourth assessment report."

Some wondered, if the UN saw no need to respond three weeks ago but now belatedly steps into the ring, does this indicate the type of desperation exhibited by the UN's hastily put together press conference after Yvo de Boer announced his resignation?

At Wednesday's UN noon briefing, three weeks after Inner City Press asked for comment on the IPCC's misuse of NGO press releases as science, it inquired into Ban's belated comment on the controversy, and his characterization of all who critique errors in the report as "climate skeptics."

Inner City Press asked asked how Ban's upbeat read out on Copenhagen squared with his Timor L'este envoy Ameerah Haq's frank statement to the Press that Copenhagen was a disappointment, reiterated February 23 at the UN Security Council stakeout.

Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky was once again testy, chiding Inner City Press that

"if you want to try to chip away between different people saying different things at different times, you could do that pretty much every day, and maybe you will... if you look at what might have been, had there not been the level of movement that there was in Copenhagen, then things would look even worse. Nobody has said that this is precisely what everybody wanted. Many people -- Yvo de Boer, Janos Pasztor -- who sat here right after the Copenhagen Conference with Bob Orr and spelled out what the role of the United Nations had been in getting to a good point, but that it was not good enough; that more needed to be done. So, it’s very easy to try to push a wedge between two different people."

After this diatribe, several correspondents asked Inner City Press in essence, what is wrong with Nesirky? To compare two statements is basic journalism. And to report on now-acknowledged errors in an inter governmental body's scientific report is not necessarily "climate skepticism" -- it is journalism. The UN does not seem to understand this.

Inner City Press asked, on February 3 and 24 and even before, for Ban's comments on IPCC chair Pachauri's refusal to make financial disclosure about income he receives from Deutsche Bank and others for advice related to his IPCC job. Nesirky responded that "To come back to the part of the question about business dealings and disclosure, this is something that he himself, Mr. Pachauri has spoken about himself, and I have no need to elaborate further on what he himself has said."

That's leadership. The person more and more widely accused of lacking transparency has rejected the charges. What more could the head of the Organization need to say? Perhaps, as on Himalaya Gate, Mr. Ban will comment in three weeks. Watch this site.

Footnote: beyond her refreshingly candid comments on Copenhagen as disappointment, Ms. Haq also answered Inner City Press' questions about an incident in which UN Police in Timor L'este were filmed standing by at Timor L'este police beat up a protester. She said it is under investigation, and that UNPOL has a duty to report. But don't they also have a duty to protect civilians?

And see, www.innercitypress.com/ban3ipcc022410.html

At UN, Climate Change Financing Discussed, IPCC Glacier and Pachauri Questions Not Taken, China Eligibility Debated

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/ban2ipcc021210.html

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].

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!"

And see, www.innercitypress.com/ban2ipcc021210.html

UN's Ban Has No Comment on Himalayan Glacier Gaffe, Doesn't Rely on IPCC

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/ban1ipcc020310.html

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

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....

And see, www.innercitypress.com/ban1ipcc020310.html

As UN's Ban "Divides and Rules" G-77, Pachauri's Bank Links Unexamined

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/ipcc1pachauri122109.html

UNITED NATIONS, December 21 -- While most observers and even participants describe the Copenhagen global warming talks as a disappointment, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Monday told the Press that they "sealed the deal" and were a success.

Inner City Press asked Mr. Ban about the scandal erupting around the undisclosed business interests of the chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Rajendra Pachauri, from the Tata Group through Deutsche Bank to Credit Suisse, and about the criticism by the chairman of the Group of 77 and its now 130 member states.

Mr. Ban entirely dodged the first question, paradoxically using it as an opportunity to praise business. On the second, he asserted that the chairman of the Group of 77 was not, in fact, speaking for the Group, since others' of its members spoke more positively.

Moments later, Inner City Press asked Sudan's Ambassador to the UN about Mr. Ban's comments. "Divide and rule," he answered, calling the Copenhagen process "climate apartheid." This phrase steps back from his counterpart in Copenhagen who analogized it to the Holocaust.

Pachauri's conflicts of interest are extensive and emblematic of the UN's lack of transparency and safeguards.

As detailed in the Telegraph

In 2008 he was made an adviser on renewable and sustainable energy to the Credit Suisse bank and the Rockefeller Foundation. He joined the board of the Nordic Glitnir Bank... This year Dr Pachauri joined the New York investment fund Pegasus as a ‘strategic adviser’... He is on the climate change advisory board of Deutsche Bank... One subject the talkative Dr Pachauri remains silent on, however, is how much money he is paid for all these important posts, which must run into millions of dollars.

So, notwithstanding the non-responsive answer Monday morning, does Mr. Ban believe that Pachauri should make public financial disclosure of these interests? Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/ipcc1pachauri122109.html