Podcasts about pachauri

In 2024, the University of New South Wales (UNSW) held a panel discussion on Degrowth as part of their Centre for Ideas series. The panellists were Tommy Wiedmann (Professor of Sustainability Research), Bronwen Morgan (Professor of Law and member of NENA), and Sabrina Chakori (CSIRO researcher). The discussion was hosted by former Deputy Lord Mayor and author of Glimpses of Utopia, Jess Scully. The panel explored sustainability and the urgent challenge of ensuring human needs are met without compromising a sustainable and inclusive future. With the kind permission of UNSW Centre for Ideas, the recording of this panel discussion is now available to listen to on the Post-Growth Australia Podcast (PGAP). Tommy Wiedmann has been a supporter of PGAP since our early days in 2021, so it was great to hear him in his element, sharing his research, knowledge, and ideas on Degrowth. We really appreciate Tommy and panel host Jess Scully giving PGAP a shout-out towards the end of the talk. We hope to return the favour by sharing this insightful discussion, which serves as an excellent introduction to Degrowth for those new to the topic. It is encouraging to see Degrowth becoming an openly discussed subject in Australian universities. Tommy also wrote a very encouraging review for PGAP on Apple Podcast (https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/post-growth-australia-podcast/id1522194099). We warmly invite you to add your review. This will help to broaden our outreach and encourage new listeners. Please also feel welcome to contact us (https://pgap.fireside.fm/contact) with your feedback or suggestions for future episode topics. Co-hosts Mark Allen (https://holisticactivism.net/) and Michael Bayliss (https://michaelbayliss.org/)share their thoughts on the panel discussion in the introduction and conclusion. For the most part, we align with the perspectives of the four panellists, but we also provide additional thoughts on how the Degrowth movement can incorporate concerns around population, which we briefly touch on in our commentary. For a more in-depth analysis, we encourage you to read the PGAP blog: “To populate or not to populate? How we can come together around the eternal debate of everyone's favourite vexed issue. (https://pgap.fireside.fm/articles/population)” We also encourage listening to two recent PGAP episodes on population, including Anne Poelina (https://pgap.fireside.fm/annepoelinapatron), who brings a First Nations' perspective to the debate, and Isaac Kabongo (https://pgap.fireside.fm/isaaceco), who brings a Ugandan/Global South perspective. Regarding the discussion on population, Tommy cited two particularly relevant scientific articles, which are well worth reading: Lamb, W. F., Wiedmann, T., Pongratz, J., Andrew, R., Crippa, M., Olivier, J. G. J., Wiedenhofer, D., Mattioli, G., Khourdajie, A. A., House, J., Pachauri, S., Figueroa, M., Saheb, Y., Slade, R., Hubacek, K., Sun, L., Ribeiro, S. K., Khennas, S., de la Rue du Can, S., Chapungu, L., Davis, S. J., Bashmakov, I., Dai, H., Dhakal, S., Tan, X., Geng, Y., Gu, B. and Minx, J. (2021) A review of trends and drivers of greenhouse gas emissions by sector from 1990 to 2018. Environmental Research Letters, 16, 073005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abee4e (. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abee4e) Kikstra, J. S., Mastrucci, A., Min, J., Riahi, K. and Rao, N. D. (2021) Decent living gaps and energy needs around the world. Environmental Research Letters, 16, 095006. https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac1c27 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac1c27) We would like to thank UNSW, the Centre for Ideas, and all four speakers for allowing PGAP to re-release this outstanding panel discussion. The original podcast of this discussion is available to listen to on the Centre for Ideas website HERE. (https://unswcentreforideas.com/article/degrowth) All views, opinions, and legacies—past and present—of the panellists and UNSW Centre for Ideas are their own and may not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of PGAP (and vice versa). Special Guests: Bronwen Morgan, Jess Scully, Sabrina Chakori, and Tommy Wiedmann.

We discuss a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision, Mathur v. Ontario, which was the subject of a recent National Post column by Jamie Sarkonak. In this case, a group of teenagers had gone after the Ford government when it lowered the CO2 targets created by the previous government. The kids claimed the change in government policy violated their Charter rights by endangering the future. The teenagers lost the first round, but now the Appeal Court has ordered a new trial, indirectly suggesting they might have a right to a stable climate.Court of Appeal for Ontario, Oct 17, 2024: Mather v. OntarioJamie Sarkonak in the National Post, Oct 22, 2024: Court says lack of economy-killing climate targets may violate the CharterSupreme Court of Canada, Apr 2, 2024: Vriend v. AlbertaFriends of Science, Aug 6, 2019: Alligators in AlaskaKen Gregory in Friends of Science, Jun 14, 2024: Climate Sensitivity by Energy Balance with Urban and Natural Warming (PDF)CanLII, Jun 20, 2024: Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, SC 2018, c 12, s 186Supreme Court of Canada, May 25, 2021: References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing ActFinancial Times, Feb 21, 2015: Chairman of climate change panel accused of sexual harassmentWikipedia: Rajendra K. PachauriBBC, Feb 24, 2015: Profile: Climate chief Rajendra PachauriCarbon Brief, Jan 12, 2023: Tonga volcano eruption raises ‘imminent' risk of temporary 1.5C breachWatts Up With That?, Aug 24, 2024: Climate Change Weekly #516: Hunga Tonga Eruption Behind “Record” WarmingKenneth P. Green, Fraser Institute Bulletin, Apr 2024: Extreme Weather and Climate Change (PDF)CanLII, Sep 9, 2021: O.M.S. v E.J.S., 2021 SKQB 243 (Ruling by M.T. Megaw)Justice Centre Concluded Case, May 11, 2023: Trinity Bible Chapel, et al. v. OntarioTheme Music "Carpay Diem" by Dave StevensSupport the show

How can patients and their families become more integral in the clinical research process? How can patient-led research become more accepted in the scientific community? How are inspiring groups forging new, collaborative paths for science and medicine, and reshaping how medical research is conducted?  We will tackle those questions and much more in this episode with Amy Dockser Marcus, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author of the recently published book, “We the Scientists: How a daring team of parents and doctors forged a new path for medicine.” Amy is a veteran reporter at the Wall Street Journal and won her Pulitzer Prize for Beat Reporting in 2005 for her series of stories about cancer survivors and the social, economic, and health challenges they faced living with the disease. She has covered science and health at the Journal for years, and she also earned a Masters of Bioethics from Harvard Medical School.  -------------------------------------------------------- Episode Transcript: 00;00;00;00 - 00;00;24;19  How can patients and their families become the centers of research? What is open science and who are citizen scientists? We'll explore those questions and more on this episode of Research and Action in the lead in. Hello and welcome back to Research and Action, brought to you by Oracle Life Sciences. I'm your host, Mike Stiles, and our guest is Amy.     00;00;24;19 - 00;00;48;22  Dr. Marcus That's right, that Amy Marcus, the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, reporter at the Wall Street Journal, a Pulitzer Prize, was won for her series of stories in 2005 about cancer survivors and the social and financial challenges of living with cancer. Her beat, as you would imagine, has long been science and health. And she holds a master's of bioethics from Harvard Medical School, and she's an author.     00;00;48;22 - 00;01;04;26  Her book is We The Scientists How a Daring Team of Parents and Doctors Forged a New Path for Medicine. So this should be interesting as we talk about collaborative, open science and the rise of citizen scientists and patient led research. So thanks for being with us, Amy.     00;01;05;01 - 00;01;06;22  I'm happy to speak with you today.     00;01;06;22 - 00;01;26;29  Great to have you. In your new book, you take readers through some really, frankly, heart wrenching experiences that patients and their families have gone through with a rare and devastating disease called Niemann-pick. Hopefully I'm pronouncing that correctly. Tell us about the book and that disease and what fascinated you about this story.     00;01;27;14 - 00;02;01;21  The origin of the book really is a personal story, which is my mother got diagnosed with a rare type of cancer. And when I tried to do research on her behalf, I started to learn how challenging it is to develop drugs for rare diseases. After she passed away, I took some time off from the Journal. I had a research grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and I started traveling around the country looking to see if there were new models that might accelerate drug discovery.     00;02;01;29 - 00;02;25;21  And during the course of that research, I was introduced to a group of parents whose children have this rare and fatal genetic disorder, NIEMANN-PICK type C disease. It's a cholesterol metabolism disorder, so the cholesterol doesn't get out of the lysosome and that compartment in the cell and it starts to build up and it causes all kinds of problems.     00;02;25;21 - 00;02;52;12  And the children eventually lose the ability to walk and to talk and to feed themselves. But the parents that I met wanted to do something novel. They had found a group of scientists and researchers and clinicians and even some policymakers in the government that wanted to work together as partners and to see if they could accelerate the search for a cure or an effective therapy for an epic disease.     00;02;52;19 - 00;02;58;11  And they let me follow along during the course of that partnership for over ten years.     00;02;58;24 - 00;03;05;24  That's amazing that you got that kind of insight. And what did you learn over the course of that ten years?     00;03;06;22 - 00;03;34;15  Well, I was really interested in how they saw the production of science in a different way. They all wanted to try to save or extend the children's lives The disagreements lay in. How do you go about prioritizing drugs? What amount of risk is a patient or a patient's family willing to take compared to the level of risk that a doctor or scientist wants the patients to take?     00;03;34;15 - 00;03;54;14  These sorts of tensions arose, I think, in part because they were modeling a new method of where the patients expertise was considered as valuable or even at the center of this of this project. And that's not usually how it is.     00;03;54;14 - 00;04;09;09  But that's rare, right? I mean, in our in the culture of our health care system, it's not really common that the patients input or the patients families input is invited at all.     00;04;09;19 - 00;04;34;11  Yeah, I think that that you're right about that. I mean, the traditional way of setting things up is that the scientists devise the hypotheses and they then construct trials in conjunction with clinicians and sometimes with pharmaceutical companies, of course. But in this particular collaboration that I was describing, the drug was not in the hands of a pharmaceutical company.     00;04;34;11 - 00;04;59;06  It was widely available. And so the partnership was truly about, you know, going to be conducted at the NIH. And therefore it gave the parent and the families, I think, more leeway to do this experimental idea. What if we all recognized each other's expertise? What if we all saw each other as equal partners? What if we got to weigh in?     00;04;59;13 - 00;05;20;24  Not in once. You've already set up the clinical trial, but at the very, very outset, when you're simply going through the scientific literature to come up with potential compounds, when you're thinking about what might work, when you're trying to prioritize what to do first, second and third, all of those things where patients don't always have a voice. But in this case they really did.     00;05;21;07 - 00;05;43;16  You know, we just had Hilary Hannah Ho on the show. She's secretary general of the Research Data Alliance, and we talked about open science and open data and how important all that is to getting the scientific breakthroughs that will actually help people and get to those breakthroughs faster. But open science can kind of be polarizing. There's some confusion around what exactly it means.     00;05;43;23 - 00;05;48;14  How would you define or describe open science and citizen scientists?     00;05;48;27 - 00;06;34;22  Yeah, I think that's a really good point, that there isn't one sort of accepted name and that there are many names and people use different phrases when they're thinking about different things. For me, I used the term patient LED research and I often use the term citizen science. And what I meant by that was, again, what we've been talking about from the outset, which is a recognition that the patient, the patient experience should be at the center of everything, a recognition that the patient and the families are experts, that they have the ability not only to be beneficiaries of scientific knowledge, but also creators of scientific knowledge.     00;06;34;27 - 00;06;46;15  And to me, that shift the idea that you can be a creator of scientific knowledge is the fundamental one that needs to happen if we're going to really reach the goals that I think we all want to reach.     00;06;46;29 - 00;07;11;10  So here's something we highlighted in your book. Quoting here Science is inherently a social enterprise. Yet too often scientists operate behind closed doors, removed from the very people they intend to help. That's struck me as kind of a mike drop statement with a lot of truth to it. But did the pandemic change anything? Was the work still removed from those patients on ventilators and ICU?     00;07;11;20 - 00;07;52;04  So I do make a point in the book to draw some parallels between the various patient led research movement experiences that I describe and the COVID 19 pandemic, and in particular the group of patients that call themselves long COVID patients, where they're suffering symptoms for many, many months. I argue that COVID allowed us in real time to to recognize that anyone can be an expert and that now that is something that it was easier to see during the pandemic because there was a novel virus, there weren't established experts yet.     00;07;52;14 - 00;08;25;28  And so while doctors and scientists and the government were scrambling to try to help patients, I think they also saw themselves for the first time as part of this effort to understand the disease. Together, there wasn't already an understanding of COVID 19. And so what I say in the book is that we can draw from from that experience and sort of take that part of it forward where we say patients should be at the center of things.     00;08;26;06 - 00;09;07;01  Patients are experts. Patients are able to identify things that many scientists or doctors didn't have time to recognize because they were they had to focus on trying to save lives and, you know, working in a vacuum at that point. So there also was a sense of urgency. Like one of the things that I was struck by during the pandemic as a as a science reporter was that scientists were able to put their papers online right away on these websites before it had gone through the full peer review process because it was recognized is so essential to get this information out there as quickly as possible.     00;09;07;09 - 00;09;29;16  And everyone understood that maybe there were going to be some mistakes. It wasn't fully vetted, but it was out there. Not only was it publicly available to the doctors and scientists who are also studying it, it was publicly available to patients and people who are simply interested. And long COVID patients organized themselves, did research on themselves, and they also published their papers on these websites.     00;09;29;16 - 00;09;43;22  I think those types of models where patient researchers can be contributors and can benefit from the information to fuel their own research, I think that should move forward and is it shouldn't be just a relic of the COVID 19 pandemic.     00;09;44;07 - 00;10;05;03  But what isn't there a risk of chaos a little bit? Because we're always told, hey, whatever condition you have, don't go Googling it on the Internet. You'll just go down a rabbit hole and, you know, worry about all these conditions that you may or may not have. So what is the risk of, like you said, mistakes and wrong information being published?     00;10;05;13 - 00;10;27;11  Well, even the traditional peer review process in science publishes papers that turn out to have mistakes in them. Papers are retracted all the time. And there is a well-known phenomenon that peer reviewed papers sometimes the results can't be replicated. I mean, that's the problem for science. I don't think that's a problem just for having patient researchers get involved.     00;10;27;28 - 00;10;54;27  I also think that the advice not to Google something is both old fashioned at this point and probably unrealistic given that almost all of us are connected in some way through the Internet. My sort of idea, rather, is that let's use the Internet and other methods to become better partners. Let's share good quality information online that people have access to.     00;10;55;06 - 00;11;20;20  Let's form partnerships where we can collaborate, where among experts, the people that I was talking to and interviewing and spending time with the parents, they weren't saying, Hey, we're trying to go it alone. We know everything. No, the opposite. What they were saying is we have very relevant and valuable information. We are experts because we live with this disease and we know what level of risk we're willing to tolerate.     00;11;20;20 - 00;11;43;28  And we do our own research. But we need partners who can also help us fill the gaps where we don't have knowledge. We want to collaborate with scientists, we want to collaborate with clinicians treating our children. We want to collaborate with government scientists who have access to data and and robots and things that we're not going to have in lab equipment that we don't have access to.     00;11;44;06 - 00;12;02;19  So no one's saying, go down a rabbit hole by yourself. What people are arguing is let's find ways to pool information, and by pooling everyone's information, we can sort through more quickly what's good, what we think is good, but might turn out not to be good later. And what can benefit all of us.     00;12;03;04 - 00;12;20;02  Yeah, and from a technology standpoint, gathering that data and organizing it and working with it is becoming more possible than ever. COVID should have scared our health system out of its mind. Did it? And is that leading to any systemic changes in science and health?     00;12;20;15 - 00;12;46;19  Well, I'd like to focus on what my book was focusing on, which is can a group of patient activists and scientists and clinicians and government policymakers working together make changes to the system? And I think the answer is yes. You can make changes to the system. The patient researchers that I was talking to and the families I was talking to, they built on activist patient work that had gone before.     00;12;46;19 - 00;13;10;06  And there have been responses in the past. HIV activists were able to influence the FDA to pass the accelerated approval rule that now allows drugs to be approved more quickly. And I think that, you know, compassionate use program that FDA has the patients in my family, the patients in my book and the families benefited from that as well.     00;13;10;17 - 00;13;48;01  So there have been changes along the way. But I think what my book is arguing for, and I think this message came out of the COVID 19 pandemic as well, is that even with all the changes that have been made in the past, the patient experience is still not at the heart of the system. And I think that's the message that all of these families are saying put the patient experience at the heart of things, and then you will see that the system, when you configure the system around the patient centric experience, you'll see that it will work in a different way and an I think, a better way.     00;13;48;02 - 00;13;50;02  But we need to run that experiment.     00;13;50;17 - 00;14;12;20  So we mentioned the concept of citizen scientists. That's what we've been talking about. These are people that pursue what they pursue, driven by mostly love and urgency for their kids, which is just a whole different level of motivation than most researchers have. I think you have a few stories about, you know, people like Chris and Hugh Hempel and and some others that went through this experience.     00;14;13;02 - 00;14;34;21  I want to make a point here that I think also is really important for people to understand who are listening to this. The parents in my book and you know, you cited Chris and Hugh, they were definitely among the pioneers who did this. And there was Phil and Andrea Morella, and there were also Darrel and Mark Poppea who are who are part of this, too.     00;14;34;21 - 00;14;57;29  And many, many other parents. I mean, the Parseghian Research Foundation and the National Niemann-pick Disease Foundation, all family driven. The people who are doing this. Yes, they are driven by their love of their children. They are driven by a sense of urgency. But they're not going to the FDA and saying, Hey, please pass and approve a drug because we love our children.     00;14;58;05 - 00;15;24;05  Please pass and approve a drug based on our emotion. No, not at all. They want to give effective drugs to their children. What they are saying is we are creating scientific knowledge and we think that that should be part of this approval process, that should be part of the drug development process. I just want to give some examples that I cite in the book where the parents were creators of scientific knowledge.     00;15;24;24 - 00;16;07;11  You had parents who read the scientific literature, published scientific literature, called up. The scientists interviewed the scientists came up with hypotheses themselves that they proposed to scientists, contributed to the two scientific experiments, coauthored papers that were published in the peer reviewed scientific literature. You know, went to the NIH regularly to have meetings where they helped contribute to assessing and prioritizing which compounds should go first in terms of advancing them into clinical trials, contributed their thoughts on the risk benefit analysis in devising the clinical trials.     00;16;07;22 - 00;16;34;28  One of the parents went to an FDA sponsored workshop for how to file an orphan drug designation, which is part of the approval process and the long process to getting approval for rare disease drugs. And went to the workshop, participated in the workshop, presented scientific data to the regulators, met with the regulators, and earned an orphan drug designation for one of the compound Cyclodextrin that got moved forward.     00;16;35;07 - 00;16;46;24  So yeah, they have a sense of urgency and yes, they love their children and want to save their lives, but they're producing real scientific knowledge and I really hope that that people take that message away from reading the book.     00;16;47;10 - 00;17;08;15  So those are great examples of exactly what citizen scientists do that sets them apart from just patients who are not doing that level of research, that depth of research. You talk about Chris Austin and the book, and I'm going to read another quick excerpt here, The Promise of Genetics to Deliver new interventions, new drugs and new treatments for patients is not going to happen.     00;17;08;15 - 00;17;27;28  Chris told his boss, unless there's some way to get through the valley of death. Francis gave Chris a green light to pursue his vision. So the boss in that excerpt is former National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins. What is the Valley of Death and Chris's role in citizen led research?     00;17;28;06 - 00;17;54;21  Great. No, that's a great question. So Chris Austin is a Harvard Medical School trained neurologist, also with a background in genetics who worked at pharmaceutical companies as well, and then found his way to the niche where he worked for Dr. Collins and became also a director of one of the institutes at NIH called Ed Katz, the National Center for Advancing Translational Science.     00;17;55;06 - 00;18;23;29  And one of the sort of green lights he got from Dr. Collins was to set up a lab that would have robots that were sort of at the same type of robots that pharmaceutical companies have that would work around the clock and could rapidly screen drugs to try to find compounds that might work for diseases. And what Chris Austin's idea was is that let's screen these vast libraries.     00;18;24;04 - 00;18;50;06  Let's find some drugs that might be promising, and let's also find patient partners. Let's find scientist partners, and let's then try to take all this data and move it forward together. One of the hypotheses that Chris Austin said he had as a scientist was can drug development go faster if patients and families are part of that process from the very beginning?     00;18;50;18 - 00;19;17;02  And one of the things that Chris Austin was trying to get around is this valley of death, which is this, you know, where compounds kind of go to die. You have a great idea as a scientist. But how do you get that idea from the bench to the clinic and to a patient's bedside? And the Valley of Death is just all the various obstacles that end up making it hard to develop a drug.     00;19;17;13 - 00;19;39;21  Some of it can be scientific. You know, you test it in a in a mouse or an animal, you test it in the lab and it turns out to be toxic for the cells or the amount of drug that you need to give to a person is so high it's not realistic or a drug company decides they want they don't want to put any money into it anymore or it gets or a drug company gets bought and they don't want to pursue it anymore.     00;19;39;21 - 00;20;02;08  And there's a million things that happen in the Valley of Death. But Chris Austin's vision was if we can involve patients and families as partners, along with scientists and drug developers and government officials from the beginning, maybe we can get things out of the Valley of Death, or maybe we can fail faster and find the successful compounds more quickly.     00;20;02;25 - 00;20;22;23  Yeah, a big takeaway from your book is the need to build bridges between science and citizens. But and we talked touched on this a little bit. You can't sacrifice scientific rigor or safety. So what are the challenges to building these bridges? What's holding that process back, especially when it does come to drug discovery and clinical trials?     00;20;23;09 - 00;20;47;05  So I think that there is a variety of issues that make it challenging to build bridges. For one thing, there's often a tension between, you know, people who are sick or are advocating on behalf of people who are sick, who really want to focus on the here and now. They they really need something to help their loved one right now.     00;20;47;19 - 00;21;22;19  And often, you know, clinical trials are an experiment. And when you enroll in a clinical trial, you're told this is not designed for the benefit of you. This is designed to benefit future patients. And therefore, it's not a treatment and it's not the equivalent of clinical care. And that can be a source of frustration and tension. And often also when research crews are doing research, they weigh the risk benefit assessment of moving drugs forward differently than people who are trying to you know, solve a problem now.     00;21;23;00 - 00;21;48;14  So I think that and that came up in this partnership in my book. It came up in this partnership in my book a lot. And yet I think each side was able to get a sense of what the points were, what the what the tensions were. But again, in my opinion, one of the ways that they overcame this divide was by both sides saying patient centric medicine is the way to go.     00;21;48;15 - 00;22;16;29  Patient centric science is the way to go. There are ways to collect data in a rigorous manner that can both benefit patients now and also not stop you from insights that will lead to benefits in the future. There are ways to come to terms with that. Some people have a higher acceptance of risk than others. I mean, we see movement towards that already right now.     00;22;17;01 - 00;22;23;01  I think that one of the messages of my book is to try to accelerate that even further.     00;22;23;25 - 00;22;37;19  Well, to that point, you say in the book, government and agencies like the FDA and NIH have a vested interest in helping these science and citizen partnerships succeed. Do they understand that? And what role should government be playing to move this forward?     00;22;38;01 - 00;22;57;01  Well, government is not one person. You know, so but I think that the book shows that there are people in the government who were partners with the patients and the families and the scientists and the clinicians. I mean, this whole book is about a partnership. And Chris Austin, although he's no longer in the government, he left the government.     00;22;57;10 - 00;23;28;05  He was in the government at the time, and he was a partner with these people. So I think that the government has shown in the book that, you know, and outside of my book, obviously interest in investing in new ways to do science, interest in investing in new ways to accelerate science, the government is supposed to represent the interests of the people, and the people's interest is in being healthy and in and trying to find solutions for drugs.     00;23;28;14 - 00;23;56;15  So in the book, I do talk about how the patients and the families in my book were able to directly talk to FDA regulators. Some of the parents went to workshops that the FDA was sponsoring. They had conversations with FDA regulators. I think those types of workshops are really novel and they really are fruitful because they allow the families and the patients to really think like scientists and to produce science as they can and should do.     00;23;56;16 - 00;24;21;16  They want to produce science. And I think also one of the messages that Chris Austin gave at representing the NIH was that the NIH is here to be your partner, and we're open to coming up with novel ways of accelerating science. So I think that there's there's openness to doing this, but of course, always more can be done.     00;24;21;17 - 00;24;51;16  I mean, patients have a sense of urgency, and that's the message that they bring to the government all the time. I mean, in the book, I, I describe FDA advisory committee hearings that are held when the FDA isn't sure about the data and they want to have a public hearing about it. And many of the parents and families showed up and gave testimony not just about their thoughts and their opinions, but about the data that they had gathered, the science that they were generating, that they wanted to share with the FDA and be heard.     00;24;52;00 - 00;25;16;13  What role does Rules Framework's guidelines play and what we're talking about here? I think you even your former advisor, was part of a group of scientists that worked on this framework. And the platform for patient led research, I think was spearheaded by that advisor, former advisor and a group of scientists. What's the infrastructure that needs to be put in place for this to work?     00;25;17;08 - 00;25;46;03  So, yes, So the advisor that you were referring to, Effie Diana was my advisor in my bioethics program and she does a lot of pioneering research on patient led research movements. And she and a group of collaborators, scientists and, and social scientists and clinicians and, and policymakers got together and tried to devise what they called a new social contract.     00;25;46;13 - 00;26;14;17  What they argued is, is that patient led research is a novel form of research that doesn't fit into the traditional regulatory standards that have guided, you know, clinical trials and human subjects research up until now. And that's because the traditional methods of regulation are based on the idea that scientists are going to be leading the research and doctors are going to be leading the research.     00;26;14;26 - 00;26;42;04  And that still is the traditional model. And they usually are leading the research. And in those cases, they often have more information and more power than the traditional patient or human subject. So Effie and her collaborators weren't arguing. We're arguing that the traditional rules should be thrown out because obviously patients do need protection and human subject research does need regulatory guidance.     00;26;42;11 - 00;27;17;26  But what she and the others were saying is let's also think about these new ways of doing research and how we can get scientists and clinicians to accept the results. That patient led research arrives at. And one of the ways she and the others said is let's come up with ways that patient researchers can seek ethical guidance. Let's put tools online that they can use so that they can devise experiments in ways that approach the rigor that traditional scientific experience experiments do.     00;27;18;06 - 00;27;52;04  Let's generate research that's of benefit to the people now, but also can be useful in guiding treatments in the future. Let's make a path towards publishing their data in peer reviewed journals. Let's make them part of the peer review process. I mean, you do have journals now that have patient researchers participating in peer review of scientific papers. And you have groups like Pachauri that ask scientists and patients to collaborate together on experiments.     00;27;52;13 - 00;28;24;24  So I think I think what she and the others were getting at is the current contract that we have may still be fine in certain circumstances, but isn't set up to address this new kind of research that's being done. And if we want it to be generalizable, scientific knowledge, which is always the gold standard, then we need to work together to help all of the partners to do better research that meets the standards that we can all except.     00;28;25;09 - 00;28;40;27  When you kind of make the promise of patient led research obvious. But, you know, how many times do we see things with great promise get tied up in knots? Is a paradigm shift likely? And if so, how long of a runway is that going to need?     00;28;41;15 - 00;29;01;11  I mean, I don't know how long it's going to take, but if there is a message in my book, if there is a message from the people that I focused on in my book, I mean, they've been working together for more than ten years. They've made a lot of progress, but they're not where they want to be yet.     00;29;01;20 - 00;29;23;29  So that's a long time. And I think that they want to go faster. I think the message of long COVID patients is we need to go faster. I think the message of HIV activists and breast cancer activists and disability activists is we need to go faster. And I don't think that you need to change a paradigm in a day.     00;29;24;12 - 00;29;53;19  Paradigms, by definition, take time to change, and they involve a lot of debate and discussion, dissension. And that's what happens in a society. People have different, different views. But I think what we're getting at here as a society is that patients need to be at the center of any paradigm that exists and that if everyone works together towards that goal, they may not agree how to get to that.     00;29;53;24 - 00;30;14;21  They may have different ideas on how to ensure that the science is rigorous and works. But if they keep this notion always at the center that the purpose is, is patient centered science, then I do think that you can end up with a paradigm that works better for more people.     00;30;15;16 - 00;30;27;10  One of the chapters in your book is Cathedral of Science, and in it a professor at Harvard. Had you read the story Cathedral by Raymond Carver. Why did they have you read that? And how does that relate to what we've been talking about?     00;30;28;04 - 00;30;55;26  Yeah, I mean, I say in the book that when we were told to read Cathedral by Raymond Carver, I was really surprised because usually in in my bioethics classes when we talk about stories and narrative bioethics, many of them involve sort of cases drawn from real life and cathedrals, really a quiet story that involves a married couple that seems to be drifting apart.     00;30;56;06 - 00;31;16;24  And the wife invites a friend who happens to be a blind man to come and stay with her and her husband. And the husband's a little bit jealous of the relationship that this person has with his wife and he doesn't really know what to say to him. And the wife goes to sleep and leaves these two men alone watching TV together.     00;31;17;00 - 00;31;38;19  And they start to watch a program about the building of a cathedral. And the narrator says to the blind man, Have you ever seen a cathedral? Do you know how to build a cathedral? And the blind man says, Let's draw one together. And the two of them construct a cathedral together. The man places his hand on the husband's hand, and they draw that cathedral.     00;31;38;27 - 00;32;01;23  And at the end of creating this cathedral, it's the blind man who says, Let's put some people inside, inside the cathedral. What's a cathedral without people? And I thought about this story all the time as I was spending time with the families and the scientists, because so many of the scientists were products of the Cathy trial of science.     00;32;01;23 - 00;32;34;13  They were the products of the best medical schools. They worked at the NIH. They I mean, they they really were, you know, part of this edifice that's been constructed and that has benefited so many people. And one of the things I kept thinking about is how do we put more people in this cathedral? I mean, that's really one of the messages that came through in this partnership that the parents and families and scientists and doctors and government officials were constructing a cathedral without people isn't really what you're looking for.     00;32;34;20 - 00;32;52;05  You're you're looking to use the power of science and research to help people. That's should be the goal of everything. And that's really the message I took from this story, that it touched me in just such a fundamental way. And it wasn't even a story about science.     00;32;53;27 - 00;32;57;18  As literature often does. That inspires us in many different ways.     00;32;57;21 - 00;32;58;20  Absolutely.     00;32;58;27 - 00;33;20;02  What did I miss? I mean, what is it that our listeners should know that you cover in the book that's important for them to know or some way that they can help or participate in this kind of effort? Or is there something that a follow up book might cover, something that you think needs additional exploration?     00;33;20;11 - 00;33;53;25  Well, I mean, I think that the message of the book is that we can all be scientists, right? I mean, it's in the title. We, the scientists, and I chose a title that echoes We the People, because I wanted people to think about the fact that what works best is a partnership. What works best is when we all come together and try to bring our different visions forward and to come up with something that will benefit all of us.     00;33;54;07 - 00;34;15;25  I think, you know, one of the things that I was struck by during during the research, not only for this book, but also when I, you know, covering health and science as a reporter is that all of us really are patients. We're either patients now or we were in the past or we will be in the future, or we love people who are patients.     00;34;16;04 - 00;34;50;28  We're advocates for those people, even if we're a doctor or a scientist, we're often on the other side of the table either trying to advocate for people we love or because we're patients. And so I think we all have a vested interest in creating a system that works well for all of us that remembers that we need treatments and that we that we need science and that all of us are experts in our own lives and that we can do research in a way that can contribute to advancing health and wellness for us all.     00;34;50;29 - 00;34;56;00  So I feel like that's the message that I hope is the takeaway of the book.     00;34;56;12 - 00;35;03;10  Well, I'm pretty sure there are listeners who are interested in the book and getting it or getting in touch with you. How can they do that?     00;35;04;00 - 00;35;26;00  So there are a variety of ways to get in touch with me. My email is publicly available. It's Amy Marcus at WSJ dot com. I'm on Twitter at Amy D Marcus. You can go into the bookstore and get the book, you know, in person, or you can order it online. You can get it from bookshop. You can get it from Powells.     00;35;26;00 - 00;35;32;18  You can get it from Amazon, Barnes and Noble. I mean, they're, you know, any, any, any place online. You can order the book.     00;35;32;26 - 00;36;03;05  Great. We appreciate that. And we want to thank you for being faithful listeners to Oracle Life Sciences, Research and Action. As always, we invite you to subscribe so you don't miss a single episode. And also maybe tell your friends and colleagues about the show as well. And we'll be back next time with more research and action.

Around 1,490 leaders across Australia roughed it out to raise funds for homelessness as part of St Vincent de Paul's CEO Sleepout 2023. SBS Hindi speaks to Mohit Pachauri, CEO of Capital for Castles, who slept outside under harsh winter temperatures for the night to support the cause and 'give back to the society.'

Hosts: Sveta and Ben Banerjee Topic: Impact Investing: How we are changing the future Guest: Dr. Ash Pachauri, POP Movement's Senior Mentor This time Dr. Pachauri interviewed Sveta and Ben to understand how we are changing the future through Impact Investing Solutions. Impact Investing Solutions focuses on education, TV show, impact community and certification with the aim of making a positive impact on the planet by aligning with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. It is a holistic solution for impact investing, has a large and diverse community and has raised funds ranging from $1 million to $430 million per project. Sveta and Ben talk about the importance of creating a sustainable future and the impact of the work on the community. They also discuss their inspiration for creating a movement towards impact investing and called the global audience to take action by making small changes that can make a big difference and by joining the movement towards impact investing and sustainable development.

The evidence from the recently released report by the Working Group III of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a clear wake-up call for humanity. In this episode of India Speak: The CPR Podcast, Dr Navroz Dubash, Professor, CPR and Coordinating Lead Author for Chapter 13 ('National and sub-national policies and institutions') & Co-author of the Summary of Policymakers speaks to Dr Shonali Pachauri, Senior Research Scholar, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and Lead Author for Chapter 2 ('Emissions trends and drivers') to understand this report and what it means for the world. Dubash and Pachauri unpack the drafting and approval process of the IPCC Working Group III and delve into the chapters to help us understand what the report signifies. They shed light on the concept of equity and differentiated responsibility of countries, particularly those that are starting at a lower level of development. They also discuss the scope of the recommendations, their hopes from the report and the need to take urgent action to address the climate crisis.

The evidence from the recently released report by the Working Group III of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a clear wake-up call for humanity. In this episode of India Speak: The CPR Podcast, Dr Navroz Dubash, Professor, CPR and Coordinating Lead Author for Chapter 13 ('National and sub-national policies and institutions') & Co-author of the Summary of Policymakers speaks to Dr Shonali Pachauri, Senior Research Scholar, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and Lead Author for Chapter 2 ('Emissions trends and drivers') to understand this report and what it means for the world. Dubash and Pachauri unpack the drafting and approval process of the IPCC Working Group III and delve into the chapters to help us understand what the report signifies. They shed light on the concept of equity and differentiated responsibility of countries, particularly those that are starting at a lower level of development. They also discuss the scope of the recommendations, their hopes from the report and the need to take urgent action to address the climate crisis.

Host - Ben & Sveta Banerjee Topic: POP Movement Special Guests: Dr. Ash Pachauri, Senior Mentor, POP Movement The weekly show on how Impactful investments and businesses are helping to implement the 17 UN SDG's worldwide to preserve the world for future generation. Banerjis have enlightening and in-depth conversations with newsmakers, celebrities, thought leaders, entrepreneurs, project owners, investors, politicians and business leaders and encourage them to act now. Dr. Ash Pachauri has a PhD in decision behavior and master's degree in international management. Having worked with McKinsey & Company before pursuing a career in the social development arena, Dr. Pachauri's experience in the fields of public health and management emerges from a range of initiatives including those of The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, PATH, UNDP, IPPF, and CDC program interventions in the US. Dr. Pachauri has been engaged with the use of information technology for development, education, and geo-informatics. A master trainer in behavior change communications and strategic leadership, Dr. Pachauri has led over 20,000 workshops, events, and activities globally to outreach to youth and communities to promote health and sustainable development. Widely published, winner of the prestigious Overseas Research Scholarship, awarded for advanced studies in the U.K. and recognized for his academic achievements, Dr. Pachauri pursues interests in research and teaching through ongoing collaboration with universities and institutions. Dr. Pachauri has been recognized by the United Nations for his dedication and leadership in their flagship publication “Portraits of Commitment”. He is an Associate Fellow of the World Academy of Art and Science. Dr. Pachauri serves on the Boards and Advisory groups of several organizations worldwide.

Bobby Pachauri is a Senior Account Executive at Deltek Inc. He is based in Washington, DC and has over 10 years of experience in enterprise software and consulting. We talk about moving from India to the US, working through college, family life, and more. anderland explores topics and people from all walks of life. Each episode is a one on one conversation with people from business, entertainment, philanthropy, and many other areas. True to his roots, Ander is known to crack open a bottle of wine or two during the podcast - a recipe for open, honest, and fun conversation.

In this podcast, Shonali Pachauri, Acting Program Director of the Transitions to New Technologies at IIASA in Austria discusses a new framework to measure energy poverty developed by her and her colleagues at IIASA that better aligns with services that people lack rather than merely capturing the absence of connections to sources of electricity. This framework distinguishes between two aspects of energy poverty - the conditions of supply, and the conditions and circumstances of households. The objective in developing this framework was to find an alternative to the too simplistic SDG indicators that underestimate energy poverty and the more complex multidimensional framework of the World Bank, which while a real step forward, is difficult to scale up to the global level.

Dr. Ash Pachauri is the president and founder of the Center for Human Progress in India. Founded in 2009, with the aim to improve the quality of life of individuals and societies by supporting, promoting and encouraging healthy behaviours and human rights.He has also co-founded with, and inspired by, his late father R.K Pachauri, two global organisations - Protect Our Planet Movement (POP Movement) and the World Sustainable Development Forum.The POP Movement’s aim is to empower youth to play an active role in addressing issues of climate change faced by our planet.While the World Sustainable Development Forum, aims to mobilise global action for the effective implementation of both the Paris Agreement on climate change and the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the UN General Assembly.With a PhD in Decision Behaviour and Master’s degree in International Management, Dr Pachauri has contributed to several initiates in the field of HIV prevention, sexual and reproductive health and rights, and sustainability.As a master trainer in in behaviour change communications and strategic leadership, Dr Pachauri has led over 20,000 workshops, events, and activities globally to outreach to youth and communities to promote health and sustainable development.As well his academic work being widely published and celebrated, Dr Pachauri has also been recognised by the United Nations for his dedication and leadership. He is valued member on boards and advisory groups of several organisations worldwide.Social MediaFB:The POP Movement @popmovementCenter for Human Progress - Ash At WorkWorld Sustainable Development Forum - @theworldsdfInsta:POP Movement - pop.movementCenter For Human Progress - centreforhumanprogressWSDF - theworldsdfMentions:World Sustainable Development Forum - https://worldsdf.org/Protect Our Planet - https://thepopmovement.org/Center for Human Progress - https://www.thechp.org/

Zerstörung der Ökosysteme, Klimawandel, Verlust der biologischen Vielfalt, Wasserknappheit, etc. - damit unsere Erde diese weiterhin bestehen bleibt, müssen wir was an unserem Verhalten ändern. Was Veganismus und Nutztierhaltung damit zu tun haben, erfährst du in dieser Folge. Schön, dass du wieder da bist! - Instagram: @len.alini // https://www.instagram.com/len.alini/ - Blog: https://lenalini.wordpress.com - Pinterest: @len.alini // https://www.pinterest.de/lenalini/ References: CO2-Ausstoß: Lesschen, J P., M. van der Berg et al. (2011): Greenhouse gas emission profiles of European livestock sectors. Animal Feed Science and Technology, pp. 166-167 and pp. 16-28. Gerber, P. et al. (2013): Tackling climate change through livestock: a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. FAO, Rome. p. 15 Rodung: IPCC (2007): Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland Pariser Klimaabkommen: University of Cambridge (2014): Changing global diets is vital to reducing climate change. Online unter: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/changing-global-diets-is-vital-to-reducing-climate-change [20.06.2018] Zwei-Grad-Ziel: Brent Kim et al. (2015): The Importance of Reducing Animal Product Consumption and Wasted Food in Mitigating Catastrophic Climate Change. John Hopkins Center for a Livable Future 20 Fleisch-Milchkonzerne: Heinrich Böll Stiftung, GRAIN & Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy (2017): Big Meat and Dairy's supersized Climate Footprint. Verfügbar unter: https://www.grain.org/article/entries/5825-big-meat-and-dairy-s-supersized-climate-footprint [03.03.2018] Wissenschaftlicher Beirat für Agrarpolitik, Ernährung und gesundheitlichen Verbraucherschutz & Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Waldpolitik beim BMEL (2016): Klimaschutz in der Land- und Forstwirtschaft sowie den nachgelagerten Bereichen Ernährung und Holzverwendung. Scarborough, P. et al. (2014): Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Climatic Change 125, p.179–192 Wasserverbrauch: Mekonnen M.M. and Hoekstra A. (2012). A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products. Ecosystems, DOI: 10.1007/s10021-011-9517-8 [07.03.2018] TU: https://www.topagrar.com/management-und-politik/news/wasserfussabdruck-fuer-milch-berechnet-9550485.html Welthunger verringern: Cassidy, E. S., P. C. West, J. S. Gerber, et al. (2013): Redefining agricultural yields: from tonnes to people nourished per hectare. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, p.034015 Gerber, P. et al. (2013): Tackling climate change through livestock: a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. FAO, Rome.

Episode 3:  In this episode, the host, Angie Gust, continues discussing John Travis’s 12 dimensions of wellness as a way to touch on all aspects of personal health and wellness. This episode focuses on sensing and how caring for and working to improve our senses will enhance our overall wellness. She also discusses climate change and highlights the upcoming Climate Action Summit, organized by UN Secretary-General António Guterres, September 23, 2019.  He is asking global leaders for specific doable plans to enhance their nationally determined contributions by 2020. Several personal actions are suggested so that everyone can be part of the solution. References Al-Ayash, A, Kane, R, Smith, D, Green-Armytage, P.The influence of color on student emotion, heart rate, and performance in learning environments. Color Research & Application, 2015; 41(2). Berk, L and Tan, S. The Laughter-immune connection. American Association of Therapeutic Humor, 1996. http://www.hospitalclown.com/archives/vol-02/vol-2-1and2/vol2-2berk.PDF Coles, S. Mottainai vs methane:The case for textile recycling. ReNew Magazine, 2016; 136:34-37. https://textilebeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ReNew-magazine-textile-recycling-article-2016.pdf Denworth, L. 2019. Children change their parents’ minds about climate change. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/children-change-their-parents-minds-about-climate-change/  Hadhazy, A. Why Does the Sound of Water Help You Sleep? Live Science. 2016 https://www.livescience.com/53403-why-sound-of-water-helps-you-sleep.html Light KC, Grewen KM, Amico JA, Boccia M, Brownley KA, Johns JM. Deficits in plasma oxytocin responses and increased negative affect, stress, and blood pressure in mothers with cocaine exposure during pregnancy. Addict Behav. 2004;29(8):1541–1564. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.02.062 Lundberg, T. Long-term results of vibratory stimulation as a pain relieving measure for chronic pain. Pain 1984, 20: 13-23. Rajendra K. Pachauri et al., Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Topics 1 and 2 (November 2, 2014): 40-62. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf Safi, M. India plans nearly 60% of electricity capacity from non-fossil fuels by 2027.  The Guardian, December 22, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/21/india-renewable-energy-paris-climate-summit-target Tercek, M.  The Climate challenge unites us. Nature Conservancy 2018 https://www.nature.org/en-us/explore/magazine/magazine-articles/the-climate-challenge-unites-us The Economic Times. India to achieve 175 GW renewable energy ahead of 2022 deadline. February 23, 2018. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/power/india-to-achieve-175-gw-renewable-energy-ahead-of-2022-deadline/articleshow/63046393.cms Travis, J and Ryan, R. The Wellness Workbook, 3rd ed: How to Achieve Enduring Health and Vitality. 2004, Ten Speed Press, New York.      

#Podcast #Iscsp #Portugal Último dia do ENERI. Conversas interessantes com o grande Pachauri sobre o ambiente e as nossas pegadas ambientais. O Professor Luís Mah deu-nos uma perspectiva das realidades asiáticas. Visão do Prof. Dr. António Sousa Lara sobre as Relações Internacionais. Grande debate sobre os extremismos políticos com os Professores Canas Mendes e Tiago Ferreira Lopes.

This week on NL Hafta, the NL team with Naresh Fernandes and Malini Subramaniam from Scroll discuss the recent attack on Malini’s house in Bastar. The question of suppressing dissent comes up once again as we see a journalist being attacked for doing her job and students at JNU being charged with sedition. David Headley’s deposition, Pachauri being re-instated in TERI and then going on leave, scientific breakthrough in theories about gravitational waves and Lance Naik Hanamanthappa’s ordeal, the news has given us a lot to talk about.For reference links visit www.newslaundry.comProduced by Kartik Nijhawan See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The world’s leading climate change authority has lost its chairman after Rajendra Pachauri resigned amid allegations he had sexually harassed a junior female colleague. This comes at the worst possible time in the run up to important climate change talks later this year. Fiona Symon discusses the news with Pilita Clarke and Amy Kazmin. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The first annual conference of the Yale Climate and Energy Institute convened leaders in science, policy, business, and international affairs to discuss the barriers that prevent clean energy from achieving full-scale deployment as well as solutions for overcoming those barriers.

Nobel Laureate Dr. R. K. Pachauri, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, addresses the Governors' Climate Change Conference, hosted by Yale. This Conference reviews state-level programs to combat global climate change and to develop a strategy for future action. The gathering will also celebrate the centennial of President Theodore Roosevelt’s landmark 1908 Conference of Governors, which launched the modern conservation movement. Governors who plan to attend the conference include M. Jodi Rell of Connecticut, Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, Jon Corzine of New Jersey, and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. Quebec Premier Jean Charest will also be present.

UN Says Eat Less Meat To Curb Global Warming - Climate expert urges radical shift in diet - Industry unfairly targeted - farmers Juliette Jowit, environment editor The Observer, Sunday September 7 2008 People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help tackle climate change, the world's leading authority on global warming has told The Observer Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which last year earned a joint share of the Nobel Peace Prize, said that people should then go on to reduce their meat consumption even further. His comments are the most controversial advice yet provided by the panel on how individuals can help tackle global warming. Pachauri, who was re-elected the panel's chairman for a second six-year term last week, said diet change was important because of the huge greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental problems - including habitat destruction - associated with rearing cattle and other animals. It was relatively easy to change eating habits compared to changing means of transport, he said. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization has estimated that meat production accounts for nearly a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions. These are generated during the production of animal feeds, for example, while ruminants, particularly cows, emit methane, which is 23 times more effective as a global warming agent than carbon dioxide. The agency has also warned that meat consumption is set to double by the middle of the century. 'In terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it clearly is the most attractive opportunity,' said Pachauri. 'Give up meat for one day [a week] initially, and decrease it from there,' said the Indian economist, who is a vegetarian. However, he also stressed other changes in lifestyle would help to combat climate change. 'That's what I want to emphasize: we really have to bring about reductions in every sector of the economy.' . . .the rest of the article can be read by visiting the online version of The Observer: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/07/food.foodanddrink

Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri, Chair of the Nobel Peace Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); Director General, Energy and Resources Institute in New Delhi Mary Nichols, Chair, California Air Resources Board (CARB) Ray Lane, Managing partner of venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Greg Dalton, Commonwealth Club Vice President, founder of The Club's Climate One Initiative PANEL: Leading a transformation to a global low-carbon economy Dr. Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, Mary Nichols and Ray Lane will address questions concerning California’s leading role in the fight against dangerous climate change. What is the state of science on the causes and impacts of global warming? Can California consumers, corporations and policymakers facilitate systemic change and spur others to act? What are the costs and what are the opportunities? What role does innovation play? “California's culture of innovation is helping to drive the world towards more sustainable ways of producing, consuming and being,” comments Greg Dalton, Club VP and Director of The Club’s new Climate One Program, who orchestrated the program. “The changes are profound and promising. And yet leading environmental scientists such as R.K. Pachauri say we all need to do more, much more.” Pachauri, chair of the IPCC since 2002, is also the director general of the Energy and Resources Institute in New Delhi, devoted to researching and promoting sustainable development. Selected by The United Nations Development Program as a Part Time Adviser in the area of Energy and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources, Pachauri holds an M.S. in industrial engineering, a Ph.D. in industrial engineering, and a Ph.D. in economics from North Carolina State University. Nichols, appointed chair of CARB by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2007, also served as CARB chair under Governor Jerry Brown. Her history includes serving as assistant administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Air and Radiation, Secretary for California's Resources Agency, and Director of the University of California, Los Angeles Institute of the Environment. Considered one of California’s first environmental lawyers, Nichols has paved the way for greater air quality. She has her Juris Doctorate degree from Yale Law School and a Bachelor’s degree from Cornell University Lane, Managing Partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, has sponsored several investments for the firm in clean and alternative energy including Ausra (solar concentrator), Fisker Automotive (plug-in hybrid car), Th!nk NA (electric car), Luca Technologies (biologically enhanced gas recovery from fossilized hydrocarbons). Before joining KPCB, Lane was President and Chief Operating Officer of Oracle Corporation, the second-largest software company in the world. Lane received a Bachelor's degree in mathematics and an honorary Ph.D. in Science from West Virginia University (WVU).

YaleGlobal Interview: Nayan Chanda Interviews R.K. Pachauri of the IPCC. Dr. Pachauri discusses the immediate need for action to slow climate change and also addresses concerns of skeptics.