Pachauri’s conflict of interest

When an organisation is being taken to the cleaners, it's the chief who takes most of the flak. Irrespective of who was really at fault, it is the head of the organisation who will be bear the brunt of the blame. This is a simple fact, which most leaders should know intuitively, but learn only after they get enough egg on their faces. Like many others before him, IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri too realised this a bit late.

Climate change sceptics and deniers have had a field day since the error in the IPCC report about the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers came to light. (See: IPCC's 2035 Himalayan glacial melt prediction by 'not correct': Scientist)

Though this was not the only faux pas in recent times from climate scientists, critics took a special liking to the IPCC's careless ways. After the Nobel peace prize lifted the IPCC's profile to new heights, it was only to be expected that the climat body and Pachauri would be the prime targets for anyone on the other side of the climate change debate.

As a UN official said, Pachauri is indeed a tall tree who will collect a lot of wind. His impervious responses only made his plight all the worse.

Several of the personal allegations against Pachauri were obviously false and they would not have received so much attention if he were more transparent and forthcoming in his responses.

One of the first charges against Pachauri was that the research institute he heads, TERI, is funded by the Tata Group. It was alleged that several Tata companies, most notably Tata Steel and Tata Chemicals, stood to benefit financially from the activities of the IPCC. The institute's name change, from Tata Energy Research Institute to the current The Energy Research Institute, several years back was a clumsy effort to hide this relationship, it was said.