VZCZCXRO5335
RR RUEHAST RUEHBI RUEHCI RUEHHM RUEHLH RUEHLN RUEHMA RUEHPB RUEHPOD
RUEHPW
DE RUEHNE #1224/01 1261202
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 051202Z MAY 08
FM AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 1599
RUCNCLS/ALL SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIA COLLECTIVE
RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHDC
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC
RUCPDC/NOAA NMFS WASHINGTON DC
RUEHZN/ENVIRONMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 NEW DELHI 001224 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR G, OES/FO, OES/PCI, OES/EGC, AND SCA/INS 
DEPT OF ENERGY FOR TCUTLER, CGILLESPIE, MGINZBERG 
USDOC FOR A/S BOHIGIAN 
NSC FOR DAN PRICE AND ROBERT DIXON 
CEQ FOR JAMES CONNAUGHTON 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SENV ENRG ECON TSPL TRGY KSCA KGHG IN
SUBJECT:  UNDER SECRETARY DOBRIANSKY ENGAGES INDIA'S SPECIAL ENVOY 
FOR CLIMATE CHANGE SHYAM SARAN 
 
¶1.  SUMMARY:  In a bilateral meeting on the margins of the Global 
Issues Forum held April 24, 2008 in New Delhi, Under Secretary for 
Democracy and Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky led a delegation 
consisting of OES Assistant Secretary Claudia McMurray and Dr. 
Robert Dixon, NSC-CEQ Senior Coordinator for Energy Security & 
Climate Change, in a meeting with Indian Special Envoy for Climate 
Change Shyam Saran.  The delegation engaged Saran on the need for a 
strong Leaders Statement for the Major Economies Leaders Meeting 
scheduled for July 9, as well as on the potential for reducing 
tariff and non-tariff barriers to clean technology goods and 
services.  In addition, the delegation explained U.S. views on long 
and mid-term global goals on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the 
need for all major economies to enter into binding commitments to 
mitigate the impact of climate change.  The delegation also 
discussed clean technology financing and the U.S. perspective on the 
sectoral approach to reducing GHG emissions.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2.  U/S Dobriansky opened the discussion by noting the significance 
of the Bali Action Plan and its emphasis on taking practical steps 
to address both mitigation and adaptation to combat climate change. 
She noted the world needed to embrace an integrated approach to 
adaptation in order to help countries find sustainable solutions 
that went beyond short-term fixes.  The Under Secretary also noted 
the broad scope of ongoing cooperation between the United States and 
India on climate issues citing the Methane to Markets Partnership, 
the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, and the Asia Pacific 
Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP).  She expressed 
the U.S. desire to continue working closely with India as the world 
moves towards a comprehensive post-Kyoto framework to address 
climate change. 
 
¶3.  Special Envoy Saran assured the delegation that India was 
"extremely positive" about working together with the United States 
based on the shared history of cooperation and also due to his 
belief that technological breakthroughs necessary to combat climate 
change are most likely to come from the U.S.  He noted India's 
strong commitment to science and technology will also allow India to 
bring something to the table and raised India's forthcoming National 
Action Plan on climate change, which he stated would include major 
efforts on solar power, solid waste management, and glacier melt 
research, as a basis for increased cooperation.  He suggested India 
and the U.S. engage in a more regular dialog on climate change. 
 
--------------------------------------------- 
MAJOR ECONOMIES PROCESS AND LEADERS STATEMENT 
--------------------------------------------- 
 
¶4.  Turing toward the Major Economies (MEM) process, U/S Dobriansky 
assured Saran the MEM is designed to feed into the broader UNFCCC 
process.  Saran stated the MEM has been useful in advancing the 
debate on the UNFCCC but cautioned that India does not consider 
itself a major emitter, finds the characterization "uncomfortable", 
and does not want to be dragged into the category of major emitters. 
 He elaborated by stating India joined the MEM process due to 
concern over sustainable development and climate change, not because 
India is a major emitter.  He stated any characterization of India 
as such creates constraints on the country's ability to participate 
in the process.  He went on to note President Bush had recently made 
comments regarding certain nations being "freeloaders" on emissions 
and that India was not a freeloader.  U/S Dobriansky made it clear 
the U.S. focus with the MEM was on major economies, not major 
emitters. 
 
¶5.  Saran stated he would like to see a greater focus on using the 
MEM as a consultative forum for addressing technology and financing 
issues.  Dr. Dixon noted the MEM provides an excellent opportunity 
to address and reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade in 
clean technology.  He stated the United States buys more clean 
energy technology than it sells and sees the removal of trade 
barriers in this area as a win-win situation for all countries. 
Saran stated there is a reserve about talking about trade in this 
context and that India may not be ready to discuss issues such as 
tariffs and the free entry of goods within the MEM.  Dr. Dixon 
responded by stating the U.S. was not trying to develop a 
comprehensive list of goods but was looking forward to getting the 
process started using a list of goods and services developed by the 
World Bank.  He also noted President Bush would want to talk about 
clean energy trade at the upcoming MEM Leaders Meeting on July 9. 
 
¶6.  U/S Dobriansky stated the U.S. would like to see a strong and 
substantive Leaders Statement come out of the July 9 Leaders 
Meeting.  Saran stated he was not sure India was ready for a strong 
 
NEW DELHI 00001224  002 OF 003 
 
 
Leaders Statement as there were not common positions on many issues 
and would prefer to see a general political statement of consensus. 
U/S Dobriansky noted the nations participating in the MEM have come 
a long way on many issues and while there may not be agreement on 
everything, she hoped to see the Leaders Statement reflect more than 
a mere statement of consensus.  Dr. Dixon stated the U.S. was 
looking forward to working with India during the next two Major 
Economies Meetings in May and June in order to work out the text of 
a strong Leaders Statement.  He noted that "trade sanctions" were 
off the table if India accepts binding commitments and that the U.S. 
seeks concrete outcomes.  Saran said he understood and that although 
the Leaders Statement may not be as ambitious as the U.S. desires, 
it could still be significant.  The latest draft (post Paris 
meeting) of a proposed Leader's Statement was passed. 
 
 
 
 
------------------------------ 
TOWARD A POST-KYOTO FRAMEWORK 
------------------------------ 
 
¶7. U/S Dobriansky raised the issue of long and mid-term global goals 
under a post-Kyoto framework stating such goals should be 
significant and something each nation can aspire to but should not 
place a stranglehold on our economies or be a basis for burden 
sharing.  She stated each country should develop its own mid-term 
global goal according to its needs and economy.  She went on to say 
that clear metrics were of particular importance in this area in 
order to ensure reductions in GHG emissions could be measurable, 
reportable, and verifiable.  She stated the United States was 
willing to undertake binding commitments in order to reach its goals 
as long as the other major economies were willing to do so as well. 
It is important to note, she said, that this statement did not mean 
commitments should be the same among all countries as the U.S. 
respected the concept of common but differentiated responsibilities 
but that all countries had a contribution to make and that while 
India should not have to make the same commitment as the U.S. or 
China, neither should it be considered in the same category as a 
small island nation.  She stated a new post-Kyoto framework had to 
be realistic and take into consideration the world as it is now, not 
where it was when the original UN Framework Convention on Climate 
Change (UNFCCC) was negotiated.  She went on to note the U.S. does 
not want to single out one country over another but rather work 
together to mitigate GHGs in a manner that is environmentally 
effective and economically sound where the overall goal is 
protecting the environment while growing our economies. 
 
¶8.  Saran stated India has already made a commitment on GHG 
emissions and has also adopted a strategy of development that will 
not result in emissions on the scale of developed countries despite 
the fact nothing in the UNFCCC requires India to do so.  He noted 
increases in India's energy consumption over the last few years have 
been only 3.8 to 3.9% while GDP has grown at a rate of 8 to 9% and 
that Prime Minister Singh has made a solemn commitment that India 
would never emit more on a per capita basis than the developed 
countries.  Elaborating on the PM's commitment, Saran noted it would 
serve the interests of the U.S. as well because the more ambitious 
developed countries were in reducing their emissions, the lower 
India's emissions would have to be. 
 
----------------------------------- 
FINANCING AND THE SECTORAL APPROACH 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶9.  Speaking of the President's commitment of 2 billion dollars to a 
Clean Technology Fund (CTF), U/S Dobriansky stated that having 
several different financing avenues available to assist with climate 
change mitigation and adaptation would be more beneficial than 
detrimental as different funds can address different issues and 
provide an integrated approach to sustainable solutions.  Saran 
responded by saying India preferred climate change financing 
mechanisms to be under the auspices of the UNFCCC due to concerns 
over potential restrictions stemming from operational funding that 
is donor driven.  Saran noted India's preference was for funds such 
as the Adaptation Fund and the Special Climate Change Fund 
(operationalized by the Global Environment Fund (GEF)).  U/S 
Dobriansky stated she had heard complaints regarding the GEF and the 
Adaptation Fund which had focused in the past on short-term 
solutions that were not sustainable.  Saran replied that although 
India preferred UNFCCC authorized funds, he was certainly interested 
in learning more about the CTF. 
 
NEW DELHI 00001224  003 OF 003 
 
 
 
¶10.  Addressing the sectoral approach to reducing GHG emissions, U/S 
Dobriansky drew a distinction between the U.S. and Japanese view 
stating the Japanese had their own methodology which was different 
from what the U.S. considered should be a bottom-up approach.  She 
assured Saran the United States had no interest in telling other 
countries how to mitigate their emissions.  Saran stated India fully 
realized the utility of a cooperative sectoral approach that helps 
all countries learn and benefit from one another.  However, he 
worried the sectoral approach could lead to the creation of globally 
binding sectoral norms that could be used to justify tariffs and 
other protectionist measures against countries whose industrial 
sectors did not meet the norms.  He raised issues regarding who 
would decide on the norms and who would pay for them stating India 
did not have the ability to pay.  He cautioned that the adoption of 
global sectoral norms was a dangerous path to follow.  Dr. Dixon 
responded stating the U.S. was not looking to create or enforce 
mandatory norms but rather to develop and deploy the best 
technologies possible.  He noted the sectoral approach lent itself 
well to the dissemination of best practices as shown by our joint 
experience with the APP.  Saran stated that the U.S. strongly 
supported the Japanese approach during the Bangkok climate change 
talks which ended in April 2008 and appeared to be backing off of 
that position now.  U/S Dobriansky and Dr. Dixon both informed Saran 
that this was not the case but rather a misconception caused by the 
press who did not understand the difference in the Japanese and 
American positions. 
 
¶11.  This cable has been cleared by the delegation. 
 
 
MULFORD