VZCZCXRO2811
RR RUEHAST RUEHBI RUEHCI RUEHDBU RUEHDH RUEHHM RUEHLH RUEHLN RUEHMA
RUEHNEH RUEHPB RUEHPOD RUEHPW RUEHSL RUEHTM RUEHTRO
DE RUEHNE #0093/01 0201213
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 201213Z JAN 10
FM AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 9179
INFO RUCNCLS/ALL SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIA COLLECTIVE
RUEHZN/ENVIRONMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 NEW DELHI 000093 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR OES/PCI, OES/EGC, AND SCA/INS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SENV TRGY PREL ECON KGHG IN
 
SUBJECT: Glacial Melt Forecast Controversy Unlikely to Impact Indian 
Position on Copenhagen Accord 
 
¶1. (U) Summary: Controversy erupted recently when a leading glacier 
scientist told the press that the section of the 2007 assessment 
report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had 
misquoted his work.  The IPCC report indicted Himalayan glaciers 
very likely would disappear by 2035.  The IPCC has said it will 
retract this assessment of glacial melt.  Several commentators now 
have questioned the validity and credibility of the IPCC's science. 
However, India is unlikely to change its position on the Copenhagen 
Accord as a result of this controversy.  End Summary 
 
Background 
 
 
¶2.  (U) The 2007 fourth assessment report of the IPCC indicated that 
the Himalayan glaciers could shrink from the present 500,000 sq km 
to 100,000 sq km by 2035.  This assessment was attributed to 
statements made in 1999 by leading glaciologist Dr. Syed Iqbal 
Husnian, who was then a professor in the Centre for Environmental 
Studies in New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University and Chairperson 
of the International Commission on Snow and Ice.  Based on Husnain's 
interviews with "New Scientists" and "Down to Earth" magazines, 
World Wildlife Fund (WWF) India in 2005 published a report on 
Himalayan glaciers that stated "if the present rate [of melt] 
continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is 
very high."  The WWF report, in turn, was used as a basis for the 
IPCC's Working Group II report on Himalayan glacial melt. 
Controversy erupted when Dr. Husnain recently told the media that 
his 1999 statements had been misquoted and the Himalayan glaciers 
will not disappear by 2035. 
 
¶3. (U) WWF India has now conceded its 2005 report "contained 
erroneous information."  A WWF India contact acknowledged to ESTOFF 
that parts of its report were anecdotal and drawn from popular 
articles rather than peer-reviewed scientific articles.  IPCC 
Chairman Dr. R.K. Pachauri, who received the Nobel Prize on behalf 
of the IPCC, and who also serves as Director-General of The Energy 
and Resources Institute (TERI) working on environment and energy 
issues, has stated that the IPCC will retract its assessment on the 
glaciers. 
 
Expect Ongoing Debates on Climate Change Impacts 
 
 
¶4. (U) The controversy has provided ammunition to those who allege 
the IPCC's science is "speculative" and its peer review processes 
are unreliable.  It has been a blow to the credibility of Dr. 
Pachauri, who also has been under fire for exploiting his IPCC 
position for personal gain, a charge he vigorously has denied. 
Several commentators have cited the glacier issue to support 
arguments that India "should not rush into" climate change 
commitments.  The leading business daily Mint, in a January 19 
article entitled "Voodoo Science, Voodoo Policy," claimed that when 
"scientists get enmeshed in political agendas" the search for truth 
is left behind. 
 
¶5.  (U) Nonetheless, there is little support for ignoring the 
conclusions of the IPCC Working Group II report, even if some parts 
of it are recognized to be flawed.  Although there is considerable 
disagreement about impacts and timing of climate change, there are 
few voices in the Indian debate denying anthropogenic causes of 
global warming.  Most climate change scientists and advocates here 
agree that there is a need for greater study of the Himalayan 
glaciers and that concluding results for the entire Himalayan range 
based on partial assessments would be a mistake. 
 
Little Impact on the India's Copenhagen Accord Commitments 
 
 
¶6.  (U) The controversy over the Himalayan glacier melt and its link 
to climate change notwithstanding, the Government of India appears 
unlikely to change its position on the Copenhagen Accord.  While the 
GOI views the Himalayan region as a fragile area and has included 
the Himalayan ecosystem in its National Action Plan on Climate 
Change, India's climate change positions were not directly linked to 
the IPCC glacier melt forecast.  Indeed, MOEF consistently has 
claimed there is insufficient scientific evidence to prove climate 
change is the cause of glacial melt in India.  Releasing a November 
2009 MOEF report on the Himalayan glaciers in India, MOEF minister 
Jairam Ramesh acknowledged that the glaciers are in a poor state of 
health, but insisted that statements on disappearing glaciers were 
"sweeping" and "alarmist."  Dr. Pachauri, among others at the time, 
criticized Ramesh's assertion that it is premature to conclude that 
the Himalayan glaciers are retreating abnormally because of global 
warming. 
 
¶7. COMMENT: (U) Ramesh, relishing the opportunity to say "I told you 
so," has continued to call for policies to be backed by scientific 
facts.  However, neither he nor any other GOI official has made any 
 
NEW DELHI 00000093  002 OF 002 
 
 
statement indicating a need to a reassess India's commitments under 
the Copenhagen Accord or questioning the fundamental premises of 
climate change science. 
 
 
ROEMER