SPECIAL FEATURE
FACTFILE: SHONALI PACHAURI
Shonali Pachauri leads the Transformative Institutional and Social Solutions Research Group at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Laxenburg, Austria. Her research explores the role of social, institutional and technological innovations for inclusive human development. Ms. Pachauri has a PhD from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, and an MSc from University College London, UK. She served as an Adjunct Professor at Yale University, USA and her papers have been widely published.
with our tool. Other applications of the tool are already emerging, for instance a co-author is exploring how it may be applied in the European Union to estimate the fair share of mitigation for each member country. OFQ : Which historic periods, in your view, have to be taken into account for the fairness considerations? SP: There is a huge debate on whether responsibility for past emissions should be accounted for from 1850 or from 1990. Of course, the implications are very different for different regions, because societies have industrialized at different points in time. I think that it is the entire industrial era that has contributed to the emissions that have caused the problems we’re facing today. Therefore, it makes sense that we should account for the longest period that we have credible data for. But I know this is a very contentious issue, because it has very serious implications for who should be paying. It’s for negotiators to decide. OFQ : UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed is advocating debt- for-climate swaps. Do you think this scheme can be made into a vehicle, which is not involved in the developed world dictating to the developing world what to do? SP: Things have shifted at least in terms of the issues and the ability to voice your concerns. Whether that voice then gets heard and translated into action, is something where there is still much to be desired. In terms of credible action there remains a lot that needs to happen, for instance recognizing that risk profiles are very different across the world, that there’s a need for de-risking, and that many low- and middle-income countries are debt-ridden. OFQ : What needs to happen? SP: I hope that the call for reforms of the multilateral development banks and international financial institutions will lead to concrete results because this has the potential to unlock a lot of private finance as well. This is indispensable, but the private sector will probably not come on board unless there are good mechanisms to de-risk, attractive offers of blended finance and different players
Climate action is a business opportunity for the private sector. It is economically profitable now to invest.
working in concert to address these concerns. The key thing that has to be communicated is that climate action is a business opportunity for the private sector. Of course, risk profiles and institutional and regulatory frameworks differ. These are factors that have to be accounted for, but it is economically profitable now to invest in these options – so why isn’t the private sector coming forward? The global community must do more to get them on board. OFQ : The fairness agenda is rightly focused on advanced economies shouldering the greater burden. However, some emerging economies could at least show regional leadership. What are your thoughts? SP: Yes, and we are currently looking into this too. We are very clearly saying that international flows for mitigation investments have to be substantially scaled-up, and flows from developed to developing regions must rise. At the same time, emerging economies have to show increased ambition because part of the necessary finance flows have to originate within their regions. We need ambition to reach our long-term goals. This also applies to emerging economies that have also subscribed to the principles of the Paris Agreement.
Shonali Pachauri, IIASA, Head of Transformative Institutional and Social Solutions Research Group
OFQ : So we also need a change of mindset? SP: Absolutely. Science has shown over and over again that people like to think about the costs of climate action, but there are also benefits, huge benefits, and nobody’s talking about the cost of inaction. But we’re seeing that cost already.
OFQ : Could you put a figure on it? SP: What we are seeing today, that’s already the cost of inaction. And we’re going to see that increasingly rise if we continue not to act. So it’s in everyone’s benefit to act.
To use the webtool developed by Shonali Pachauri, go to https://data.ece.iiasa.ac.at/fairmitigation
31
Powered by FlippingBook