ENVIRONMENT MINISTER DEFENDS COPENHAGEN ACCORD; LOCAL NGOS

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 NEW DELHI 002550

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

STATE FOR OES/PCI, OES/EGC, SCA/INSB, EEB/ESC/IEC and EEB/TPP/BTA
STATE FOR SECC TODD STERN
DEPT OF ENERGY FOR TCUTLER, CGILLESPIE, MGINSBERG
TREASURY FOR DAS PIZER AND OFFICE OF SOUTH ASIA MNUGENT
USDOC FOR ITA/MAC/OSA/LDROKER/ASTERN/KRUDD
DEPT PASS TO USTR MDELANEY/CLILIENFELD/AADLER
TREASURY PASS TO FRB SAN FRANCISCO/TERESA CURRAN
USDA PASS FAS/OCRA/RADLER/BEAN/FERUS

E.O. 12958: N/A

TAGS: SENV ENRG ETRD TSPL TRGY KSCA KGHG IN

SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENT MINISTER DEFENDS COPENHAGEN ACCORD; LOCAL NGOS
VITRIOLIC

REF: NEW DELHI 2441


1. (SBU) SUMMARY: Minister of Environment and Forests Jairam
Ramesh claimed victory for India's Copenhagen negotiating team in a
parliamentary session December 22. Ramesh used his response to
opposition attacks to sensitize the nation to the idea India needs
to realize its responsibilities as an emerging power. Ramesh said
India's emissions should peak no later than 2100, that it should not
demand no-cost technology transfer but rather sell clean tech to the
rest of the world, and that it had nothing to fear from
international consultation and analysis of its domestic mitigation
actions. While the GOI congratulates itself on the Copenhagen
Accord, local NGOs are condemning it in the strongest possible
terms. END SUMMARY.


2. (SBU) Minister Ramesh, with Prime Minister Singh in attendance,
defended the Copenhagen Accord in the upper house of India's
parliament in a two and a half hour question and answer session
December 22. He said India was "entirely successful" in its
negotiation strategy as there was no dilution of either the Bali
Action Plan or the Kyoto Protocol, India was not required to agree
on a year in which its emissions would peak, and it avoided any
legally binding emission commitments, including a long-term global
goal of reducing emissions 50 percent by 2050. Ramesh stated the
Copenhagen Accord was fully consistent with PM Singh's 2008
commitment that India's emissions would never exceed those of the
developed world on a per capita basis and that "India's access to
global atmospheric resources was not limited but assured."


3. (SBU) Ramesh was attacked by the opposition who stated the GOI
had "been outwitted" by the developed world. Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP) and left parliamentarians claimed the Copenhagen Accord
derailed the Bali Action Plan, was an "implied abrogation" of the
Kyoto Protocol, accepted the concept of peak emissions, left India
off the priority list for climate finance and technology transfer,
and put national sovereignty at risk over the issue of international
scrutiny of unsupported domestic mitigation actions. BJP MP Arun
Jaitley feared the Copenhagen Accord would subject the country to
international consequences if India falls short of its promised
mitigation actions.


4. (SBU) Ramesh responded stating the Kyoto Protocol and Bali
Action Plan were "sacrosanct" and would be the basis for all future
climate negotiations. He said India had already accepted the
concept of peak emissions, which was implied in PM Singh's 2008 per
capita emissions commitment, and that not accepting a stated peak
year was a major success. However, Ramesh cautioned that India had
to realize its emissions must peak no later than 2100 to avoid
damaging climate change. On finance, Ramesh gave his personal
opinion that India doesn't want international aid and should stand
on its own two feet. He backed off this statement immediately
saying international assistance was needed but it was time India
understood it was not in the same category as countries such as
Bangladesh, Maldives, Grenada, or African nations. He made similar
statements regarding technology transfer saying India should realize
technology is bought and sold, not given away, and that India should
be selling green technology to the world.


5. (SBU) Ramesh did concede India's agreeing to international
consultation and analysis of domestic mitigation actions was a shift
in policy but that he had signaled the possibility in his statement
to the lower house of parliament December 3 (Reftel). He said the
shift was necessary because the United States delegation had told
the world there would be no financing without transparency and after
that, representatives of Bangladesh and the Maldives approached him
questioning India's stance against international scrutiny of
domestic mitigation actions. He defended the shift stating the
consultation and analysis provisions in the accord were similar to
those found in the World Trade Organization and that India should
not fear them as they would not be intrusive or erode national

NEW DELHI 00002550 002 OF 002


sovereignty.

--------------
LOCAL NGOS NOT HAPPY
--------------


6. (U) The general feeling among Local NGOs is one of
disappointment and anger at both the GOI and the Copenhagen Accord.
The Bangalore based Centre for Social Markets likens the accord to
the 1938 Munich Pact claiming it appeases major emitting nations,
condemns the world to runaway climate change, and is a declaration
of war on our children. The New Delhi based Centre for Science and
the Environment accuses the GOI of buckling under Western pressure
and claims the Copenhagen Accord forgives developed countries for
their historical responsibility, eliminates the distinction between
developed and developing countries, prevents effective action to
curb global warming, and fatally undermine efforts to renew the
Kyoto Protocol saying the accord will be disastrous for the climate
and for India's most vulnerable communities.

--------------
COMMENT
--------------


7. (SBU) The most telling aspect of Ramesh's performance in
parliament was what appeared to be a concerted action to nudge the
country toward eventual acceptance of the greater responsibilities
of an emerging power in the context of the climate negotiations. He
deftly handled the issue of peaking emissions, clearly stated India
was not in the same category as other developing countries, and with
Prime Minister Singh sitting silently six feet away, stated India
did not need to demand technology transfer at low or no cost. This
marks a substantial change in India's climate position and takes it
further from the G-77. With Special Envoy for Climate Change Shyam
Saran rumored to be retiring within a month, Ramesh will be left
firmly in the driver's seat with a host of progressive ideas on the
road to Mexico City.

ROEMER