Ramesh's conversation with UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ( UNFCCC) executive secretary Christiana Figueres is the first time an Indian minister formally suggested to a UN official or foreign negotiator that the west need not be asked to accept deeper emission cuts.

He also told Figueres that India and other countries should now work for a legal framework to CancunAgreements signed in December 2010, which the government has said imperils the Kyoto Protocol and leaves it in limbo.

In the minutes of Ramesh's meeting with the highest UN official on climate change accessed by TOI, the minister's position is contrary to what the government has said on record and maintains publicly. As recently as June, the government demanded at the Bonn negotiations that the US and other developed countries agree to emission cuts ranging from 40% to 50% below 1990 levels and ensure their emissions peak by 2012. This, instead of the 13-18% emission cuts these nations are willing to accept so far.

Ramesh also contradicted India's stance on turning the Cancun Agreements into a legally binding deal. So far in the negotiations, India has said it will not consider making the Cancun deal a legally binding framework or reaty till other issues related to the Bali Action Plan are resolved.

India has said Kyoto Protocol's second commitment period with strong emission cuts needs to be agreed upon before other deals are approved. For India, the Kyoto Protocol (KP) works as a trump card with developed countries whenever the west pushes for matching commitments from emerging economies. Neither Ramesh nor Figueres responded to TOI's requests for a comment.

The minutes record: "Christiana Figueres asked MEF (environment minister) about his approach to Kyoto Protocol issues. MEF was of the view that the Annex I countries (developed countries except the US) may not have the political appetite to revisit the ambition expressed at Cancun. Their ambition with regard to their emission reduction levels appear to be frozen. It would, therefore, be difficult to do further work on raising the ambition levels either within the KP framework or outside it (referring to the US)."

Ramesh noted, "Our approach should be realistic and we should now think of operationalising the elements of Cancun Agreements including the ambitions in a legal framework. Otherwise, 'we would keep going on filibustering without reaching a conclusion'."

Developed countries like the US, and the EU, have argued that all energies be focused on giving a legally binding character to Cancun Agreements -- creating a new global deal -- and other issues such as Kyoto Protocol and equity be taken off the table in the run-up to the major talks at Durban at the year-end.

The government, in its own review of Cancun Agreements, concluded that the pacts signed in Mexico left the future of Kyoto uncertain. They assessed, as reported earlier by TOI, that the Cancun Agreements saw developed countries getting off lightly by merely volunteering their targets and developing countries being enlisted for similar commitments.

TOI asked Ramesh whether his statements crossed the red lines drawn by the Cabinet and why he had suggested that developed countries should not be asked for higher emission cuts. In the internal assessment, the government noted, "...the developed countries are not under pressure to list their targets under a stricter regime of the Kyoto Protocol. Substantial work remains to be done on strengthening of weak mitigation pledges by developed countries."

Now, India is having to battle to put equity and IPR issues for technology and trade sanctions back on the table. About the Cancun Agreements, which he recommended be turned into a legal framework, Ramesh agreed in the internal assessment that they let the US off the hook. This was so because "there is no clarity whether this (US voluntary targets of 4% emission reduction by 1990 levels) will be subject to a regime of accountability".