The Chair of the UN panel on climate change has told us that he is optimistic that a change in public opinion will lead to a breakthrough at the Copenhagen climate summit.

The Chair of the UN panel on climate change has told us that he is optimistic that a change in public opinion will lead to a breakthrough at the Copenhagen climate summit. Dr Rajendra Pachauri also said reductions in emissions can be made without compromising economic output. We put a series of reader's questions to him prior to his appearance with Paul McCartney at the “Less Meat = Less Heat” debate in the Parliament's Chamber on Thursday (3 December) which called for people to eat less meat.

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading body for assessing climate change science. Their assessment reports have formed the basis for policy making and have warned that a temperature rise of more than 2 degrees Celsius in the next century would be calamitous for life on earth. 

Joseph Caruana (Malta) asked whether the COP15 (the Copenhagen climate summit) will become the first instance of a diplomatic collision course between developed and underdeveloped world?

I hope not because I think we have a shared interest, every developed and developing country is going to be victims of the impact of climate change, therefore we must realise that we are in it together. There is the principle of common but different responsibilities, which would impose different levels of commitments depending of what the state of other country is.

Some counties, particularly in parts of Africa, Asia and also in Latin America don’t have the capacity to be able to adapt to the impact of climate change. I think that the developed world will have to come to their assistance that is a moral and an ethical issue.

I am optimistic about Copenhagen because I have seen a major change in public opinion over the last 2 years, particularly since the fourth assessment support of the IPCC came out. So I think all of this will come together.

Philip Strothmann (Germany) believes that with likely US proposals and China's offer to reduce their emissions intensity, then a rise in 2° is unavoidable. Is he right?

If we don’t take action, we will exceed 2 degrees Celsius, no question about it.

Whatever agreement we come up with in Copenhagen will certainly not be the last word. Science must inform public policy in this area. The fifth assessment report of the IPCC, which will come up in 2013 and 2014, will provide further information.

Isaak Magerman (Belgium) raised the issue of the industrial revolution and a possible new revolution in production; do you believe that new green technologies can realistically replace existing ones?

Undoubtedly. I was in Germany yesterday and I met Chancellor Angela Merkel. In the case of Germany the government is following proactive policies. They have now installed 5,5 gigawatts of solar capacity. In India we are moving ahead with very ambitious plans to harvest solar energy. There are also enormous opportunities for improving energy efficiency for example in the transport sector in housing and in industry.

If you take all these measures and combine them it is entirely realistic to believe that we can substantially reduce the emissions without any loss of economic output or employment opportunities. That's a matter of fact – some of these measures actually enhance employment opportunities. What we need is political will but as my good friend Al Gore says, “political will is a renewable resource”. 

Paul Van Rompaye (Belgium) would like to ask whether the goal of cutting CO2 is also an opportunity to redirect the economy away from what he calls “the American consumption model”?

The world has been through several radical and tectonic changes if I may say so. We started as hunter-gatherers and then we saw the development of agriculture.

So I don't see why we should be afraid of major changes taking place now which will ensure that we grow, we develop, we consume in a manner that is consistent with protecting the environment. We have now to bring the environment and climate change centre-stage.

Andres Galindo (Spain) is afraid of a shortage of drinking water in the future; is he right to be?

I would say, he should not be afraid, but he should certainly be aware of the fact that in some parts of the world water stress is going to grow dramatically. We have to create a movement where governments, businesses, civil society and people start looking at water and that there is no such thing as a resource without value (in the sense that it should not be taken for granted).

Ercan Acar (Turkey) would like to know if renewables can really replace fossil fuels?

I have no doubt that renewables can replace fossil fuels and possibly nuclear power. I think there are several parts of the world, including Europe, that using their imagination and innovation, should be able to use renewables on a large scale.

One thing that you have missed out looking at seriously is the possibility of using North Africa as a location for large scale solar power generation and transport by undersea cables to Europe. Wind is another example. And of course we can use renewables but we have to make sure that in the same time we improve the efficiency of energy use, because the two have to work together.

Backstory: “Less Meat = Less Heat”event on 3 December

The “Less Meat = Less Heat” debate brought together Rajendra Pachauri, Paul McCartney, MEPs and leading scientists to discuss the impact of meat production can have on global warming.

A recent report by the Parliament's Science and Technology Options Assessment (STOA) “Implications of Global Trends in Eating Habits for Climate Change, Health and Natural Resources” looked at the how large amounts of water and feedstock are used to produce meat and how the production of meat produces large amounts of greenhouse gases.