 Thank you Mr. Chairman and friends. The topic of my presentation is energy access and climate change, a developing country perspective. I'm going to take the case study of India and show how the benefits from energy access can lead to climate change benefits. There is a clashing position on climate change as all of you know. I categorize them as supporters and skeptics. What do the supporters say? There are serious consequences if you don't address the climate change issue, the rising sea levels, extreme weather and impaired health. And it affects the natural system, forests, ecosystem and biodiversity and natural weather related disasters quadruple in every last 40 years and economic cost of disasters is significant and double in every decade. And what is the position of skeptics? They say it's not a scientific inquiry. If I look at the IPCC reports carefully, it's filled with ifs, maybes and likelys. And there is no relation with human activities, particularly Dr. Glassman's study in 2009. His thesis is based on the data that has been used by the IPCC itself and he has concluded it's not the human related activities that contributes to climate change and it is the sun's moments. So and in the morning also it has been mentioned climate models cannot be verified for its complexity and predictions are exaggerated. And GH's theory is not the only explanation of warming trend and it's high cost. Whatever you are going to invest today and if you say you are going to get the benefits 80 years or 100 years and if you take the discount rates and estimate the present value it's not that significant. That's what the skeptics say. And timing of bringing climate change into focus and many a question. It's because in 1980 China has started development path and in 1990s India started and the climate change issue came into focus only in 1980s. And there is a Himalayan blend. You might have read the former IPCC chairman he had categorically mentioned that by 2030 Himalayan glaciers will be disappeared and and later when there was an uproar that statement has been taken back. So what the skeptics say is there should not be any action on climate change. What the support us it's a overaction. I belong to the category of climate realists and see that we should follow sustainable development approach that is a bottom-up approach instead of focusing on climate change which results in poverty reduction and energy access. You take the bottom-up approach the poverty taken to consideration energy access which automatically leads to climate change benefits. Take the case of India. In 2000 by 2010 nearly 450 million people have no access to electricity and additional 500 million have access to unreliable electricity and 700 million people still use traditional fields. There are two reasons. It is non-accessibility and affordability. What is the result? It's a loss of natural resources, significant loss particularly fuel would and it prohibits economic opportunities as well as growth and social inequity between gender, groups and regions and declared environment local, national and global. Have a look at the facts and figures about India from 1950 to 2010. In 1950 70% of the total energy is used by the household sector and by 2010 it is 38% whereas the services some 7 to 19% and transport 5 to 11%. There is a significant change in the sectoral consumption from households to transport and services and the total energy from 85 million tons of oil equivalent has reached 720 million tons of oil equivalent. This is the primary energy. What is the look at the household energy? In 1950 the total 57 million households, 97 million households, 97% were using biofuels which has been reduced to 67% and whereas LPG, there is no use of LPG in 50, 27% are using LPG and there are others and kerosene 1.2 to 2.7. Look at the energy accessibility indicators for cooking. If we categorize urban areas into megacities, metros, other cities and small towns, only 67% of the households in all the urban areas are cooking with gas fuels. It can be LPG or biogas and in rural areas accessibility is only 11%. That means literally 140 million households in rural areas still need gaseous fuel for cooking and in urban areas 29 million households. Then what about the lighting? If you look at the lighting statistics, 92% of the household villages they are electrified but only 55% of the households in those villages they have electricity connection. Energy affordability indicators look at the rural and urban, poor and non-poor. Solid fuels, basically fuel wood, charcoal and agricultural waste, 66% of the non-poor, they use solid fuels in rural areas and in urban areas 32%. If you look at the total, 75% in rural areas and 47% in urban areas still depend on solid fuels for cooking. So what are the losses? I calculated losses, productive time for adults, particularly girls and women, they walk long hours to obtain fuel wood, per annum 150 billion hours are being spent for obtaining fuel wood, cut it and cooking and for children it is 78 billion hours and there is also resource utilization and its opportunity cost because 70% of our total imports oil is imported and 3.7 billion US dollars in terms of kerosene and 3 million hectares of forest and plantations are being cut to supply fuel wood to this household and it also has an impact on health 1.2 billion, zero to billion hours is being lost due to health problems and 78 billion hours particularly for children. Pollution nearly 700 million tons of casserole emissions. So what is the outcome? If you look at 60 years, we have transformed from unlimited renewables to limited non-renewables. It's a locally available resources to transport it and imported energy carriers from basic service focus that's a lighting community transportation to luxury service. It's a personal transport and air conditioning. The focus initially was in the rural households and decentralized and now it's urban service, it's a centralized. It is a loss, loss, loss scenario, loss to the individual, loss to the government and loss to the society. What can be done? We have to change the system. If we really think the existing system is not beneficial to society and if we really want to change the system, what should we do? The first thing what we have to do is understand the system. What is meant by understanding the system is understanding the actors in the system. Who are these actors? I categorized actors into four levels. There is a meta level, there is a macro level, there is a meso level and at the micro level. Each actor has an influence on the system. The influence can be large or small. It can be a positive influence or a negative influence. They certainly affect the system how it works. At the meta level, you have IPCC, multilateral institutions and the powerful nuclear lobby. And at the macro level, you have governments, national environmental agencies and research and development organizations. And at meso levels, you have utilities, private sectors. And at the micro level, you have energy and users, NGOs and sustainability concern groups. We have developed a business model, entrepreneurship based and how to provide basic energy services. This present people are talking about social entrepreneurship. Actually, this actor analysis for the past 10 years I'm working in this particular aspect. Wherever I go in villages, urban regions, interact with the various stakeholders, particularly when I was looking at the energy efficiency. How to do it? The first thing is household. Households are ignorant about the options. Even they are ignorant, even they know about the vast options. They are unable to pay for this one. Even if they are able to pay, they are indifferent what can be done. You have to convert them from laggard to innovators. Capacity building for the non-governmental organizations. And mailing newspaper articles. And entrepreneurs. This is a new link in the actor chain. You have to introduce entrepreneurs into the system. I don't think academicians can tell them how to do it. They need mentors. And there are business organizations, the dream merchants, energy service companies, equipment manufacturers and private utilities. They should be bring into the system to supply modern energy services. And we have to convince them it can be profitable. And the financial institutions, which is an oxygen pipe, it is a local new business model. And global local benefits will reach the global benefits. And finally, the government. At present, it is a controller and it should be converted from controller to facilitator. I have estimated the cost and benefits both for cooking, water heating and lighting. For cooking, it is 10,040 billion. And lighting, 823. And this is for each household. How much does it benefit? How much are the time saved per household? Per household. Productivity business. They can start a new business. Existing business. If you have modern energy service and the new business. Lighting, TV, education, improved health, energy savings and carbon saving every year, 43 million tons. So if you do it, then the outcome is from non renewables to renewables from transported and imported energy carriers to locally available energy resources and subsidy driven to business oriented. You need not have to bring subsidy here and growth focused to low carbon development oriented. It's a win, win, win scenario. A win for the individual because he obtained the modern energy services and significant benefits are there. There's a win for the government. There's a significant reduction in the subsidies, avoided capacity cost and avoided peak load benefits and for society and there is a resource savings as well as emissions. So this is the implementation at the different actors. You have government, you have energy service companies, you have entrepreneurs, you have financial resources under the supply side. Whatever is the fossil fuel subsidy at present, the government guy is giving nearly 15,000 crore per annum. It can be diverted for constructing the infrastructure for biogas and the banks, market and financial business houses and the local bank and finally the government. So this is aligning the actors. At one level, you have an energy security actors and at the another level, you have climate security actors. What one has to do is you have to design policies to map the energy security and climate security together. So that developing concern to climate change. You start with provision of modern energy services. There is an increase in quality of service, improved health, education level, there is an employment benefits, there is an overall development. Finally, it leads to climate change benefit. You start with provision of modern energy carriers and it leads to climate change benefits. So it's not just about economics, it is about the values. It's not about climate, it's about the actors behavior. It's a systems failure, not the pupils failure. It's neither purely a technological nor purely an economic issue. Energy is a social issue. Thank you.