VZCZCXRO5588
RR RUEHHM RUEHLN RUEHMA RUEHPB RUEHPOD
DE RUEHNE #3809/01 2331057
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 211057Z AUG 07
FM AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 7708
INFO RUEHCI/AMCONSUL KOLKATA 0693
RUEHCG/AMCONSUL CHENNAI 1240
RUEHBI/AMCONSUL MUMBAI 0381
RUEHKP/AMCONSUL KARACHI 8082
RUEHLH/AMCONSUL LAHORE 4098
RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHDC
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC
RUCPDC/NOAA WASHDC
RUEAEPA/EPA WASHDC
RUEHZN/ENVIRONMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 NEW DELHI 003809 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR OES/PCI, OES/EGC, AND SCA/INS 
DEPT OF ENERGY FOR TCUTLER, CGILLESPIE, MGINZBERG 
USDOC FOR A/S BOHIGIAN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OREP SENV ENRG TSPL ECON TSPL TRGY KSCA KGHG IN
SUBJECT:  STAFFDEL KILLION ENGAGES INDIA ON CLIMATE CHANGE 
 
REF A: STATE 109657 
 
NEW DELHI 00003809  001.2 OF 002 
 
 
¶1.  (U) Summary:  In a series of meetings with GOI ministries as 
well as Indian NGOs from August 8 to 10, Senior Professional Staff 
Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee David Killion 
introduced H.R. 2420, the congressional blueprint for a post-Kyoto 
global agreement known as the International Climate Cooperation 
Re-Engagement Act of 2007, and discussed the Indian position on 
Global Climate Change (GCC).  Across the board, Staffdel Killion 
heard the same message:  India is locked into the Kyoto Protocol; 
there is no need for any mechanism to address GCC other than the UN 
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); India's economic 
development and poverty alleviation goals require great increases in 
power generating capacity, including from coal with accompanying 
increases in green house gas (GHG) emissions; and clean technology 
transfer must be provided to India and other developing countries at 
prices affordable to them.  End Summary. 
 
¶2.  (U) In separate meetings, the Staffdel met with: 
-- Manjeev Singh Puri, Joint Secretary, United Nations Economic & 
Social, Ministry of External Affairs; 
-- R.H. Khwaja, Additional Secretary, Climate Change, Ministry of 
Environment and Forests (MOEF); 
-- Gireesh B. Pradhan, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Power; S.P. 
Seth, Special Secretary, Ministry of Coal; 
-- V. Subramanian, Secretary, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy 
(MNRE); 
-- Surya Sethi, Principal Advisor, Energy, GOI Planning Commission; 
-- Dr. R.C. Bhatia, Director-General, Indian Meteorological 
Department; 
-- Ambassador Chandrashekher Dasgupta, Distinguished Fellow and Dr. 
Prodipto Ghosh, Distinguished Fellow, The Energy and Resources 
Institute (TERI); and 
-- Chandra Bhushan, Associate Director of Industry and Environment, 
Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). 
 
All of whom conveyed the same position:  India is already doing more 
than its fair share to combat GCC. 
 
¶3.  (U) All of the delegation's interlocutors quoted the same 
emissions statistics - India is responsible for no more than four 
percent of the world's GHG emissions despite having approximately 18 
percent of the world's population.  This per capita formula was used 
by all to argue that reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and GCC 
is not India's responsibility and that India sees no need to go 
beyond the principles laid down under the UNFCCC for developing 
countries via the Kyoto Protocol, meaning India would neither agree 
to caps on its emissions nor to any mechanism that would limit 
development.  Joint Secretary Puri made it very clear India regards 
the UNFCCC as a solid, well-negotiated agreement and that India does 
not see the need for an additional mechanism to address GCC. 
 
¶4.  (U) When asked whether India would reconsider its position if 
the United States were to assume a leadership role, as outlined in 
HR 2420, the response was again the same across the board and best 
summed up by Ministry of Power Joint Secretary Pradhan who stated, 
"India is locked into Kyoto" and its position on India's exemption 
from GHG reduction targets would not change no matter what may be 
forthcoming in U.S. policy.  However, MEA Joint Secretary Puri 
stated "nothing can seriously move" without U.S. participation and 
all acknowledged U.S. initiatives and commitments on reduced 
emissions would be most welcome. 
 
¶5.  (U) The need for economic development was a constant refrain in 
all meetings with an emphasis on the need to develop in order to 
fight the potential catastrophes associated with GCC.  Joint 
Secretary Puri noted that all countries need to adapt in order to 
 
SIPDIS 
mitigate the effects of GCC and India does not have the ability to 
do so without further economic growth.  Chandra Bushan, a somewhat 
radical environmentalist who has often attacked the government on 
various issues, surprised the delegation by stating his views on GCC 
are similar to the GOI.  Because it is impossible to de-link 
economic development from increased energy production and 
consumption, Bushan stated, India cannot make a commitment to reduce 
its emissions without creating "poverty in perpetuity." 
 
¶6.  (U) While the emphasis on economic development was universal, it 
was Principal Advisor Sethi from the Planning Commission who fleshed 
 
NEW DELHI 00003809  002.2 OF 002 
 
 
out exactly what was meant in India by development.  He clearly 
articulated that China and India should not be linked, that the 
ideas of development in India were very different from those of the 
Chinese.  He stated India's priorities were not six lane highways 
crossing the country, nor one car per person, nor all families 
living in air conditioned homes.  India's priorities, according to 
Sethi, were clean drinking water, education, and health care.  He 
stated the bulk of India's power is used to cook food and that "we 
cannot deny our people cooked food."  Comment:  Sethi's description 
of Indian development, as well as the obvious differences between 
Beijing and New Delhi in terms of roads, buildings, frequent 
blackouts, and general infrastructure, resonated with the 
delegation.  End Comment. 
 
¶7.  (U) The road to development was also not in dispute.  Once again 
the GOI, TERI, and CSE agreed that India will not develop on 
outdated models.  All mentioned an emphasis on new and renewable 
energy with Secretary Subramanian informing the delegation the 
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy was not just a fashion 
statement set up in response to recent concern over GCC but rather a 
ministry established over 25 years ago overseeing seven percent of 
India's power generation capacity, most of which is wind (7000 mw) 
with the rest coming from biomass (3500 mw).  When coupled with 
hydroelectric, the total of India's clean energy rises to 34% of its 
power generation capacity.  Subramanian, Puri, Sethi, Pradhan, and 
Bhatia all use these figures to emphasize that India's use of clean 
energy is far in excess of its contribution to global warming. 
Candidly, all also admit India is reliant on new and renewable 
energy due to lack of fossil fuels as opposed to a desire to reduce 
its carbon footprint.  Comment: The relative share of wind power, 
biomass, and hydro-electricity in India's actual production of 
electricity is substantially lower that their respective shares of 
generating capacity, due to their lower load factors.  For example, 
hydropower has 26% of capacity, but only 17% of generation. 
Conversely, although coal-fired thermal power makes up about 53.5% 
of power capacity, coal and lignite account for 68% of total power 
generation in 2006-2007 according to GOI statistics. End Comment. 
 
¶8.  (U) As noted, the bulk of India's power generation capacity is 
made up of coal, which is currently far from clean.  However, 
Special Secretary Seth discussed India's desire to implement clean 
coal technology; his statements were echoed among all of the 
delegation's interlocutors with the exception of Chandra Bushan who, 
as an environmentalist, fears clean coal because it will make it 
more difficult for wind and solar to compete in the marketplace. 
Bushan stated that India's path to development will use the cleanest 
methods available and illustrated a mandate CSE was able to secure 
from the MOEF requiring all new manufacturing plants in India to use 
state-of-the-art clean technology.  He also confirmed widespread 
agreement among government, industry, and the Indian public that 
"climate change is real" (referring to GHG emissions having a causal 
impact on world climate) and needs to be addressed. 
 
¶9.  (SBU) Interlocutors at every level reiterated the desire for 
clean technology transfer to combat GCC, at low or no cost.  All of 
the delegation's interlocutors raised issues of equity and 
historical responsibility to argue that the developed world must pay 
for the developing world to combat GCC.  Puri and Subramanian both 
stated if the United States and Europe were serious about climate 
change, they should not deal with the issue in terms of profit to 
companies who develop clean tech and should "get beyond money" for 
the sake of the planet.  Comment:  This refrain struck the staff 
delegation as not only self-serving but also hollow.  It appears 
India is truly concerned about mitigating the likely impact of GCC 
and will take some financial steps to increase clean energy 
technology's share of the overall mix.  End Comment. 
 
¶10.  (U) In addition, MEA Joint Secretary Manjeev Singh Puri 
confirmed that a GOI delegation will attend the UN General Assembly 
Heads of State Dialogue on Climate Change on September 24, the 
President's Major Economies Meeting on September 27-28 (Ref A), and 
the Bali UN Framework Meeting set to take place in December 2007. 
Puri did not provide details as to who India intends to send other 
than that they will be at "the appropriate level." 
 
¶11.  (U) This cable was cleared by David Killion. 
 
WHITE