Several news agencies are reporting today that the United States is involved in a “secret” climate pact with Australia and a few other countries. Reuters reports,

“The world’s top polluter, the United States, is set to unveil a pact to combat global warming by developing energy technology aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions, officials and diplomats said on Wednesday. China and India, whose burgeoning economies comprise a third of humanity, as well as Australia and South Korea are also part of the agreement to tackle climate change beyond the Kyoto protocol.”

While there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss the pluses and minuses of the proposal, I find it very interesting and somewhat puzzling to see that the pact has already been endorsed by Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC. Here is how he is quoted by Reuters:

“I think it is a good idea because the development of these technologies is important and I’ve always said there has to be a partnership between North and South in these technologies. This is one way of working together,” said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “It does not interfere with the Kyoto protocol,” he said.”

I’m not sure how he comes to the conclusion that it does not interfere with Kyoto. Of course it doea. Here is how Australia’s environment minister characterized the agreement in the same article:


“Australian Environment Minister Ian Campbell said on Wednesday that the five countries had been quietly working on the pact for months. “It’s quite clear the Kyoto protocol won’t get the world to where it wants to go … We have got to find something that works better — Australia is working on that with partners around the world,”"

And the United States is clearly looking to move “post-Kyoto”. This new pact is clearly being offered to move beyond Kyoto, and as such presents an alternative strategy to Kyoto going forward.

Irrespective of the merits of the new climate pact, it seems irresponsible at best for the chairman of the IPCC to take a public advocacy position on it, one way or the other. There are plenty of venues for political advocacy on climate, but as we have argued here before, the IPCC ought not be among them.