I begin with a proposition. There are a great many pressing problems in the world. There is population growth and economic development, with attending pressures on resources - including food and that other essential, water. There is a continuing global security crisis, augmented by the rise in terrorism. There is the chronically inequitable distribution in resources between the rich nations of the North and the poor nations of the South. And there is the steadily growing body of evidence for a major reorganization of the global climate regime.

My proposition is that the last of these is the most serious threat - not only because it will profoundly affect the lives of our children and our grandchildren in a direct way, but also because it will interact powerfully with every single one of the other problems I have listed.

Let me begin with the science underlying climate change. Last week I helped organize a symposium and briefing session on climate science for press, policy-makers, and the public, supported by the Hewlett Foundation and with co-sponsorship from the Conference Board. We had ten of the most distinguished climate scientists in the United States, led off by Sherry Rowland, the Nobel Laureate in Chemistry. The purpose was to make a careful assessment of the science - what we know for sure, what we think likely, and what are interesting but unproven possibilities.

So here is a short summary of what we know. General Circulation Models - climate models that take into account variations in the sun's energy, volcanic activity, and other natural phenomena - explained fluctuations in average global temperature very well over most of the past thousand years. But for the past hundred years, these same models faithfully reproduce global temperature history ONLY if they include the greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons - that are by-products of human economic activity. That is why the average temperature of the globe has risen by about one degree F, and the sea level has risen by between 10 and 20 cm., in the last century. The primary causative agent is carbon dioxide, which in preindustrial times was about 280 ppm/v and has now reached 380ppm/v. It is rising continually as the activities that produce it are proceeding on a business as usual basis. That is because the failure of the Kyoto protocol - a failure both because its targets were inadequate, and also because they were unattainable by many of the participating nations - has left us without any basis for meeting the goals of the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change. Just to remind us, the US is a signatory and a party to that agreement, under which we are committed to limit atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases to avoid "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."

Why, a dozen years later, is there some doubt about the dangers of this interference? The C02 we add to the atmosphere will stay there; its average residence time is a century. There is no disagreement about whether average global temperature will rise; it will. The scientific debate is about how much. For the future we depend again on the General Circulation Models. It's reassuring that when applied to past climates in "back-casting" efforts, like the example I gave a moment ago, these actually predict climate history so accurately. Perhaps more interesting, they regularly somewhat underestimate the magnitude of the real climate changes - that is, Nature regularly turns out to be harsher than the models suggest. Projecting the models into the future, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and an evaluation by the National Academies prepared at President Bush's request, estimate that by the end of this century, the increase in average global temperature will be between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Centigrade.

Why such a range? These models, like most, contain some uncertainties. Some of these are scientific: how increased cloud cover might affect the outcome, since clouds can either cool the climate by reflecting sunlight from above, or warm it by trapping heat that is leaving from below; how changes in the earth's albedo due to melting ice might accelerate heating, and so on. Aerosols produced by volcanic eruptions have a cooling effect, as the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo did in giving us two unusually cool years in the early 90's. Other uncertainties are economic and social: we don't know how national policies and international agreements will serve to restrain the amount of greenhouse gases we are adding.

These uncertainties - about half due to the models themselves, and the rest to social and economic unknowns -- have provided arguments for those who prefer to postpone economically difficult approaches for controlling greenhouse gas emissions. But it is important that even at the very lowest estimates, there will be substantial changes in the nature of human life on the only planet we currently occupy. The rather modest impacts of the past century have already produced profound changes in regional climate dynamics. Substantial ice-sheet melting and retreat is taking place both in the Arctic and in the West Antarctic ice sheet. In the Arctic, where climate warming has been extreme, sea ice is sharply diminished and rivers become ice-free much earlier. Low latitude mountain glaciers are shrinking; the famous snow-capped summit of Kilimanjaro will be bare within fifteen years, converting hundreds of old African safari shots into historic treasures.

Biological cycles are experiencing the effects of warming, with upward extensions of the range of Alpine flora and advances in the time of flowering or breeding by an average of 5 days per decade. The models have all also predicted more frequent and severe weather events, and we have had heat waves in the upper Midwest and Paris, accelerated beach erosion on coasts all over the world, and disastrous floods and landslides in Central America.

That is now, but of course we are more interested in the future. What the models tell us unambiguously is that the climate system is headed for further disruption. The standard scenario foresees a steady, ramp-like increase in average global temperature, with a concomitant rise in sea level, but records of past climate tell us that it is riddled with abrupt changes - something that the models fail to predict well. A possible alternative involves a change in major ocean circulation patterns - especially in the North Atlantic, where a clockwise gyre brings warm equatorial water up via the Gulf Stream. As it flows Northward and then crosses Eastward, it is cooled by the atmosphere, becomes more saline through evaporation, and then sinks to return as a cold deep current. If large discharges of fresh meltwater or rain made this water less dense, it could fail to sink and thus disrupt the entire cycle.

A fictionalized version of such a scenario appears in the disaster film "The Day After Tomorrow," which you should see only for amusement. Beyond that silliness lies a real prospect that a gradual change in average global temperature could intercept the threshold for some non-linear, dynamic process, triggering abrupt changes in either direction. Of course there is uncertainty: we are engaged in a large-scale, uncontrolled experiment on the only planet we have.

Let's consider some collateral impacts. A group of us at Stanford was asked by the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict to look - among other things -- at ways in which environmental change might alter the circumstances under which human populations might be placed. Climate change was an important variable. One example we looked at was the impact of sea level rise, along with storm surges from extreme weather events, on the Ganges-Brahmaputra delta. Flood disasters already occur there regularly. 15 million people live within 2 meter above sea level, and are vulnerable to abrupt displacement. We know they will have to go somewhere; in the past they have fled in much smaller numbers to Bengal. The security problems arising from a massive influx of a traditionally hostile population, combined with an almost certain high level of cholera infection, are not difficult to imagine.

Water is a desperately important resource in most parts of the world, and drought is often followed by famine or emigration. Here in the US, warmer winters threaten mountain snowpacks and will soon demand the revision of interstate and international water allocation agreements. Maritime rivers are already undertaking management steps to deal with saline intrusions due to sea level rise or storm surges. In Great Britain, the barrier that protects London from occasional flooding of the Thames estuary is now being used six times a year compared to less than once a year in the 1980's.

Agriculture, of course, is the most essential of human activities. The regional distribution of global warming impacts may be at least temporarily kind to temperate-zone food production. But the models all predict an increased incidence of mid-continent droughts as climate change progresses, and we know that the American Midwest has in the past experienced droughts both deeper and longer than the one in the 30's that led to the Dust Bowl migrations. Irrigation is an answer to drought, but in the six High Plains states, dryland wheat production depends upon the Ogallala Aquifer, a buried ice-age storage well that is being so rapidly depleted that it is already unusable in its southern portion. And in the tropics, where people are poorest and capacity to adapt is minimal, the consequences of even modest warming will be far more serious.

Infectious diseases are spread by vectors, like the Anopheles malaria mosquito, that have their own patterns of reproduction, movement, and climate sensitivity. In parts of Africa where vertical topography dominates, warmer and rainier seasons cause malaria incidence to rise in higher-altitude locations. In a warmer and wetter world, more of the same can be expected.

So climate change is not an isolated problem. Instead, it is likely to interact with most of the other problems humans face all over the world. Thus I hope that this meeting will help encourage us to prepare a sound portfolio of risk-reducing measures. These will not, I must tell you, bring us out of the woods. Our destiny is partly built in -- to the heat that is already locked into our oceans, to the greenhouse gases that are already in our atmosphere and will increase by another 50% or more no matter what we do, and to the justified economic appetites of the developing world. What we will be talking about, it should be clear, are ways of limiting the damage to manageable levels, NOT preserving the status quo. We lost that years ago.

So the contemporary policy challenge amounts to a bet about risk: are the consequences of business as usual likely to entail costs greater than those of beginning to mitigate those consequences now? Other nations - the UK, several EU countries, and Japan - are making substantial commitments. Some industries - British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, and Swiss Re, for example - have undertaken steps of their own. The insurance burden from the exploding rates of coastal erosion and storm damage has pushed the insurance industry to lead. If companies fail to participate in emissions reduction and join with others to resist such measures, questions are already being raised. If you believe so strongly that climate change is a myth, Swiss Re might say, then surely you won't mind a climate-related events exclusion from your Directors and Officers insurance policy.

But we can't count on voluntary actions, and the United States so far has only announced a long-range research program that, although it looks reasonable, makes NO current commitments to mitigate our contribution, about a quarter of the world's, to the global warming problem. We must have a more aggressive national policy to purchase insurance against this risk.

It will not be cheap. We have old, coal-fired power plants in this country; it may take subsidies to replace them with modern, less carbon-intensive facilities that run on natural gas. States like mine are already driving the transportation sector to ultra-low emission, and that may move the domestic industry in a positive direction. Some of us will have to give up our reflex opposition to nuclear power and begin comparing its risks realistically against those of global climate change. Although the room for alternative energy sources (photovoltaic, wind, geothermal) is limited, these options need encouragement. Energy conservation measures have, at several times in the past, turned economic predictions on their head by their success, and the right incentives could yield real benefits there.

The portfolio I have just described is needed, but will not be enough. We know that market-based mechanisms for emissions control can work, because they did in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments that limited SO2 emissions. The bill proposed by Senators McCain and Lieberman would mandate a cap-and-trade program for controlling carbon dioxide emissions. Similar systems are being considered by regional assemblages of states in the Northwest and the Northeast, and that may encourage the development of a national system - which could then build trading relationships with other nations that are moving toward similar regimes. A case for this approach is elegantly made in the Council on Foreign Relations Policy Initiative on Climate Change, by my colleague David Victor.

The United States is in a position of natural leadership here. It is the most powerful nation - and the world's leading producer of greenhouse gases. Plainly it is in its own national interest, in multiple ways, to reduce its consumption of fossil fuels. To see it failing in this most vital, globally sensitive matter is a national embarrassment.

Beijing tries to read mixed U.S. signals in Korea diplomacy By John W. Lewis

For the past year China has led the quest for a negotiated solution to the Korean nuclear crisis. It facilitated and hosted three-way talks with the United States and North Korea a year ago this week and two sessions of the six-party talks (adding South Korea, Japan and Russia) in August and February. Its officials crisscrossed the globe to explore potential areas of common interest and compromise and this week hosted North Korean leader Kim Jong Il to explore options for the beleaguered Korean Peninsula. Yet, in each of the formal talks, the Chinese have been discouraged by the minimal results. They are now questioning U.S. intentions toward Korea and, in the longer term, toward China.

Beijing considers the unchecked expansion of North Korea's nuclear weapons to be a real possibility, and its reasoning starts with the record of U.S. policies toward nuclear proliferation. That record, the Chinese argue, is mixed and often contradictory. As a result, China worries that Washington might continue to tolerate the program so long as Pyongyang did not cross key red lines, such as the transfer of nuclear materials to terrorists.

Whatever Beijing's past position on nuclear matters, many senior Chinese now regard nuclear weapons on their border to be a direct threat to their national security and suspect Washington of downplaying that danger. For them, it is no great leap to the conclusion that the unfettered growth of the Korean program might embolden others in Asia, including Taiwan, to acquire nuclear weapons despite verbal opposition from Washington. Beijing's leaders can easily imagine how that nightmarish turn of events would undermine the nation's drive toward modernization and end strategic cooperation with the United States.

Despite the fact that all parties at the six-party meeting in February endorsed the dismantling of the North's nuclear weapons program, the Chinese fear that the talks may be dead in the water. Following that meeting, they began to debate other ways to resolve the crisis. They had already reorganized the leadership team responsible for North Korean affairs, and that team had begun acting to prevent the worst case, including offering further inducements to Kim Jong Il this week. Whereas last fall the talk of deepening U.S.-China cooperation on Korea pervaded the news, now, especially after Vice President Dick Cheney's uncompromising stand on Korea and Taiwan last week, the reverse is occurring.

What China can do in these circumstances is quite limited. Its influence on North Korea is largely determined by what the United States does or doesn't do. By refusing to negotiate on a staged process leading to the eventual dismantlement of Pyongyang's nuclear weapons, Washington has tacitly allowed the North's program to proceed. It has rejected proposals for a temporary freeze, technical talks and any interim steps short of the unconditional and complete ending of the program. The result is virtual paralysis.

Beijing has been able to work with North Korea only when it could find areas of potential compromise between Washington and Pyongyang. It cannot or will not act

alone to exert pressure because this would jeopardize its influence on the North. Contrary to a widely circulated story, Beijing did not cut off energy shipments to North Korea for three days in 2003. Beijing would not take such a counterproductive action when its main influence with the North lies in the kind of quiet diplomacy being practiced this week with Kim Jong Il.

Many in Beijing are beginning to question whether there might be a more promising approach with Pyongyang. Should the Chinese, South Koreans and Russians conclude that making progress toward the common goal of the North's complete nuclear disarmament is out of reach, for example, they reluctantly might translate their joint offer of aid in February into a quid pro quo for a partial agreement, such as a limited freeze, that would allow the situation to stabilize. China could worry that such an independent action could endanger the common front with Washington. At the same time, it could calculate that the United States would be sufficiently pleased with any solution that halted the North Korean nuclear program.

None of these developments may come to pass, of course, but who could have imagined a year ago that Washington would have permitted the situation to deteriorate to the present point?

For the past year China has led the quest for a negotiated solution to the Korean nuclear crisis. It facilitated and hosted three-way talks with the United States and North Korea a year ago this week and two sessions of the six-party talks (adding South Korea, Japan and Russia) in August and February. Its officials crisscrossed the globe to explore potential areas of common interest and compromise and this week hosted North Korean leader Kim Jong Il to explore options for the beleaguered Korean Peninsula. Yet, in each of the formal talks, the Chinese have been discouraged by the minimal results. They are now questioning U.S. intentions toward Korea and, in the longer term, toward China.

Beijing considers the unchecked expansion of North Korea's nuclear weapons to be a real possibility, and its reasoning starts with the record of U.S. policies toward nuclear proliferation. That record, the Chinese argue, is mixed and often contradictory. As a result, China worries that Washington might continue to tolerate the program so long as Pyongyang did not cross key red lines, such as the transfer of nuclear materials to terrorists.

Whatever Beijing's past position on nuclear matters, many senior Chinese now regard nuclear weapons on their border to be a direct threat to their national security and suspect Washington of downplaying that danger. For them, it is no great leap to the conclusion that the unfettered growth of the Korean program might embolden others in Asia, including Taiwan, to acquire nuclear weapons despite verbal opposition from Washington. Beijing's leaders can easily imagine how that nightmarish turn of events would undermine the nation's drive toward modernization and end strategic cooperation with the United States.

Despite the fact that all parties at the six-party meeting in February endorsed the dismantling of the North's nuclear weapons program, the Chinese fear that the talks may be dead in the water. Following that meeting, they began to debate other ways to resolve the crisis. They had already reorganized the leadership team responsible for North Korean affairs, and that team had begun acting to prevent the worst case, including offering further inducements to Kim Jong Il this week. Whereas last fall the talk of deepening U.S.-China cooperation on Korea pervaded the news, now, especially after Vice President Dick Cheney's uncompromising stand on Korea and Taiwan last week, the reverse is occurring.

What China can do in these circumstances is quite limited. Its influence on North Korea is largely determined by what the United States does or doesn't do. By refusing to negotiate on a staged process leading to the eventual dismantlement of Pyongyang's nuclear weapons, Washington has tacitly allowed the North's program to proceed. It has rejected proposals for a temporary freeze, technical talks and any interim steps short of the unconditional and complete ending of the program. The result is virtual paralysis.

Beijing has been able to work with North Korea only when it could find areas of potential compromise between Washington and Pyongyang. It cannot or will not act alone to exert pressure because this would jeopardize its influence on the North. Contrary to a widely circulated story, Beijing did not cut off energy shipments to North Korea for three days in 2003. Beijing would not take such a counterproductive action when its main influence with the North lies in the kind of quiet diplomacy being practiced this week with Kim Jong Il.

Many in Beijing are beginning to question whether there might be a more promising approach with Pyongyang. Should the Chinese, South Koreans and Russians conclude that making progress toward the common goal of the North's complete nuclear disarmament is out of reach, for example, they reluctantly might translate their joint offer of aid in February into a quid pro quo for a partial agreement, such as a limited freeze, that would allow the situation to stabilize. China could worry that such an independent action could endanger the common front with Washington. At the same time, it could calculate that the United States would be sufficiently pleased with any solution that halted the North Korean nuclear program.

None of these developments may come to pass, of course, but who could have imagined a year ago that Washington would have permitted the situation to deteriorate to the present point?

Silicon Valley cannot be replicated-not even in the US, leave alone India.

But there is no underestimating the complex and high end nature of information technology work that's increasingly being done in India.

There is almost nothing that is not doable, except certain high investment, high value manufacturing, like microprocessors.

This year stands out for the speed with which India, still very much a poverty ridden developing country, has emerged as a partner of mature econom-ies in a wide ranging field that covers information technology, business processes and research and development.

Unsurprisingly, such a major development has been accompanied by drama, excitement, anguish and misunderstanding. The rapid acceleration in trends, which in some cases date back to over 10 years, has given little time to players on both sides to rationally assess and adjust to new realities.

Some don't seem to know what has hit them and have therefore gone on to make unrealistic assumptions.

In the west, particularly in the US, there is a backlash against outsourcing to countries like India, China, the Philippines and Russia, with India being the most visible and so taking most of the rap.

Correspondingly, there is an element of euphoria in India in the belief that it has arrived. Some are making unrealistic assumptions that it is on the way to becoming a new Silicon Valley to the world.

Significantly, the knowledgeable and those who are in the vortex of change have a realistic view of what exists on the ground and an enlightened foresight of the shape of things to come.

In this survey of opinion leaders in the information technology industry, we try to come to grips with the new, rapidly emerging reality what is the exact nature of the high tech work taking place in India in information technology and what are the precise contours of the emerging cross border partnerships?

First, the Silicon Valley red herring. Sridhar Mitta, managing director of the incubating firm e4e Labs, almost snorts at the mention of Silicon Valley.

He recalls how the good professors at Stanford University started to get too many visitors who came and asked the same questions what makes Silicon Valley tick and can we replicate it in our country?

They undertook a methodical study for a couple of years and helped define the uniqueness of the creative process that occurs in a small geography 30 miles by 10 miles, near the Californian city of San Francisco.

To Mitta, the Valley's defining characteristic is that some of the best brains in the world are concentrated in a small geography. "It is an innovative high tech cluster. There is an ecosystem of companies which add value to each other."

In Silicon Valley people are willing to share ideas and are not worried about theft. Business discussions are concluded very fast as people want to get on with a project. A project can be started in a week.

There is no concern over individual ideas being stolen as it is assumed that if you are bright you will have many more worthwhile ideas. In the Valley, people don't care about religion, creed or nationality. "There is only one religion, business," Mitta says.

Another industry insider concurs. "Silicon Valley is not a service, but a risk taking model, whereas the Indian software model is largely based on cost effective and efficient delivery of services," he differentiates.

Many of tomorrow's problems are first defined in US universities and then get crystalised as business opportunities. "Firms in the Valley work closely with those universities to quickly grasp the business ideas that emerge from diagnosing and solving a technical problem, for example."

Where does Indian expertise and capability stand then? "The Indian environment still lacks the original ideas that create the new business models. This is because of the lack of proximity to markets," the industry insider explains.

"Once an engineering problem is defined, it can be executed in India." The key and growing Indian competency now is that it has crossed the technical hurdle, there is little that cannot be technically done in India.

If Silicon Valley scores 100 for the purpose of our present discussion, Mitta gives Bangalore 15.

"Bangalore has passed criticality in technical prowess but is still abysmally low in interaction. The culture of networking is better in Bangalore than in the rest of India but nowhere near what exists in the Valley. Here a major part of the load is carried by multinationals which guard their secrets very jealously," Mitta says.

Bangalore also scores on its educational institutions which can deliver the raw materials or skills. Like the Valley, it has some of the best brains, relatively speaking, and some companies have reached criticality of size. Some complex work gets done here in a serial way within companies.

"I know that a US company can start a complex work group here which involves doing many things, though not all. But I don't know what the company on the floor above mine is doing," notes Mitta.

Subroto Bagchi, COO of MindTree Consulting, who is based in the US, explains that in the 1990s people thought that any work that required a high degree of customer knowledge and collaboration, design and architecting had to be done exclusively in the US.

"Anything that required innovation had to be done near the water cooler. So now there is hardware, software and wetware the coffee machine and what's between your two ears, as most of the human brain is water."

But the big change has come with the availability of high bandwidth which has made the water cooler virtual.

"If earlier we looked at India for just development or maintenance work, now we are able to look at co-development and co-architecting," Bagchi notes.

Till two human beings meet, trust is not established. Innovation-related activity, co-development and co-architecting are not done by two entities but by two human beings.

Two techies have to accept each other as "buddies" before they can innovate together. "That happened after Y2K. It established the cross cultural comfort. In a nutshell, India has become legitimate," Bagchi adds.

Higher value add projects are now coming to India and company boards across the world are increasingly being asked, 'What is your India strategy?' Investors in venture capital funds are asking them, 'What are your plans for India,' and they in turn are asking companies 'What are your India development plans?'

The software insider says India's current role is to "complement" not "replace" Silicon Valley. "If present trends continue, maybe India can equal Silicon Valley in seven to 10 years. But the approach cannot be 'We versus they.'"

Another authority adds his support to this scenario, making a deft distinction between what is on and not on.

Says Madhukar Angur, David M French distinguished professor at the Flint School of Management, University of Michigan: "Today almost nothing is too high-tech for India. In technology (IT, designing, R&D) India has taken significant strides. It is pretty close to self-sustaining growth. But it is not quite there. So MNCs will look at India as a location for startups but not standalone ones."

So they will also seek out partners, as Intel has done with startups like Tejas Networks.

The cooperation and joint development approach is underlined by K P Balaraj, managing director of WestBridge Capital Partners.

He feels that "the vast majority of the work being done by start-ups in India is led by teams located in the Valley. What is changing though is the timing of an India ODC (overseas development centre) which is being set up much earlier in the life cycle or even at the seed stage."

What is more significant is that as multinationals which follow the example of early leaders such as GE, TI, Intel, Oracle and others start to do more cutting edge work here, there will be a large base of India-based engineers and managers who will have the experience of building and bringing a world-class product to global markets, primarily the US.

"From this base, we will see a future generation of product entrepreneurs emerge who will have the vision and market credibility to attract high quality VC funding for their plans," Balaraj adds.

Innovation means developing new technology or products. Product development in India is already taking place but as a secondary exercise.

Sanjay Kalra, CEO of the HCL-Deutsche Bank joint venture DSL Software, explains the sequence of what came first and then what followed. At any point of time more than 70 percent of spending takes place on sustaining investments in existing technologies.

This, like work on new technologies, also requires high end work that is innovative. But a majority of the effort is in tasks that are process and procedure bound.

In such tasks, innovation is focused on how to deliver the subcontracted tasks better (process improvement, quality).

High end startups are now beginning to allocate and locate a high percentage of employees (or contractors) in India.

In the past it was the large technology players that leveraged the lower costs and high availability of talent. The smaller startups would contract to small and large players on a need basis.

But of late a lot of smaller startups are also beginning to factor in India as an integral part of their business plans right from the beginning.

What is more, several start-ups are now using India as the base to also conceptualise and then produce in India for markets in Asia.

The good news on products is that Intel is in India in a big way and is going in for the joint effort startups that hold the key to the future. Intel's own agenda, says Ketan Sampat, president of Intel India, is to establish leading edge design capability.

Says Sampat: "At Intel's development centre (its largest non-manufacturing site outside the US), we are engaged in some of the most advanced development activities not just in India but anywhere in the world. For example, the flagship next-generation enterprise processor that Intel will have in volume production is being designed entirely in Bangalore."

But he sees an important milestone that has to be crossed Indian firms still have not broken into the ranks of product companies with their own intellectual property and branded product lines.

"The i-flex's of the world are still too few and far between," Sampat says. So Intel Capital, the company's strategic investment programme, has been an investor in several Indian technology companies. Sampat mentions the investment in Sasken Technologies.

"Its product GSM/ GPRS software stacks complements our "Manitoba" (wireless Internet on a chip) product and it has customers worldwide."

He also mentions another telecom company, Tejas Networks. "It is starting with the Indian market which is sizeable now and is using it as a springboard to the global market."

Sanjay Nayak, CEO, Tejas Networks, sees only the beginnings of high end startups in India, like his company. "It will take some time before we see a major shift in startups originating in India, though the enablers are all there."

The most common trend is to have an "engineering backend" in India of a US originating startup. Within this, the major amount of work that is being done is "software" centric not much system design or hardware design work is done.

He expects that "once we have a few success stories of high-end product companies from India, it will accelerate the trend." In the past, countries like Israel and Taiwan have witnessed such trends.

Srini Rajam, chairman and CEO of Ittiam, another startup product company, sees high end start ups becoming increasingly dependent on designs done in India.

"There is a strong push coming from the investors of the start ups to locate a large part of their design team in India or source their key designs/IP from Indian companies, in order to improve R&D budget utilisation and time-to-market."

He sees early revival worldwide in one segment-the semiconductor and embedded systems. "This is in turn is enabling the growth of chip design, embedded software and system design activities in India."

Several factors are likely to encourage more high end work to come to India and help it become an increasingly important partner of Silicon Valley.

First, the reverse brain drain or brain gain that has been taking place in the last few years, especially since the tech bubble burst in early 2000 and the recession that set in in Silicon Valley.

One person who has been plotting it carefully is Rafiq Dossani, a senior research scholar at the Asia-Pacific Research Centre of Stanford University.

"My guess is that 6,000 jobs have been lost from Silicon Valley in IT to India. Looking ahead, the flow will depend on both opportunities in India and here."

The Silicon Valley economy is picking up rapidly and hiring should soon increase, feels Dossani. In addition, it remains unbeatable on new product development because of its global reach of talent and proximity to markets.

So the younger and more innovative will be attracted to the Valley. India will continue to attract those in the 30-40 age group interested in raising families in India and those interested in a rapid rise up the executive ladder through a stint at a senior level in India.

Also, a key security factor is enabling high end work to shift to India, argues Angur. India will be a country of choice for location of partnerships on considerations of economic stability.

"Multinationals gamble on technology but are cautious on geography. Even China and Taiwan have a security downside. India-Pakistan relations is indeed perceived as a security risk but still India is on the preferred US list."

He sees a significant historical parallel. Technology and IT will be to India what the automobiles industry was to the US.

"One out of every three in the US has something to do with automobiles. The IT revolution has the seeds of becoming something like that. In the immediate future mutlinationals will consider India more and more for high-tech startups and there will be more high tech jobs."

Bagchi shares a deeper insight rooted in Indian history and social development. India, he feels, has two cards up her sleeve: "One is the power of diversity and two the power of pluralism, imparted to it by its institutions."

The future of the global economy is in more trade but post 9/11, the west is also looking for a sense of comfort a degree of security and cultural fit.

How many countries are there with world class capability in IT services from which an American company can source? Out of the choices available, how many countries are both diverse, so that there is a democratic-cultural fit, and believe in institutional pluralism - executive, judiciary, legislative system? "These institutions give a guarantee of continuity," he says.

To become an innovation partner to Silicon Valley, an economy must innovate. Innovation is invariably linked to diversity. The US has been at the cutting edge of technologies because it has such a pro-immigration policy.

"We did IT services for 15 years and moved up the value chain. But the next big value chain is about innovation. That innovation depends on the fertility condition on the ground. That condition is necessarily about diversity," Bagchi adds.

The United States needs natural gas. Developing countries many thousands of miles away are willing to supply it. This sleepy beachfront town and other communities along the Gulf of Mexico are likely to become the links between producers and consumers.

Altogether, energy companies are planning to spend more than $100 billion in the next decade to bring gas from developing countries to rich nations, according to PFC Energy, a Washington consulting firm. The only way to do it is to supercool the gas so that it condenses into a liquid, which is then compact enough to load onto tankers and send across oceans.

For years, this process was too costly to compete with relatively cheap domestic supplies of natural gas and with imports from Canada. But those supplies are tightening just as the demand for clean-burning gas is soaring. That has led to the most severe gas shortage in the last 25 years and caused domestic gas prices to double this year.

The gap between domestic supply and total demand is forecast to grow significantly over the next 20 years. That has made liquefied natural gas competitive, if only companies can find places that are willing to accept having L.N.G. terminals built nearby. "We've entered the gas age, and there's no turning back if we want a firm supply of a strategically crucial fuel," said Michael S. Smith, an investor who controls Freeport LNG, a Houston company that plans to build a receiving terminal on Quintana Island.

Mr. Smith and his partners, Cheniere Energy and Contango Oil and Gas, both of Houston, expect to begin construction of the terminal early next year on this tiny island about 70 miles south of Houston. The $400 million operation will be able to receive ships full of liquefied natural gas, warming the gas and piping it to a nearby plant owned by the Dow Chemical Company.

Quintana Island's attraction lies not only in its proximity to a plant that uses natural gas as a raw material but also in its location near the center of the nation's energy industry. That, it is hoped, will make political resistance to such projects tepid compared with the safety, aesthetic and environmental concerns in places like Northern California and Massachusetts.

Despite such concerns and worries that large, potentially explosive gas terminals could become terrorist targets, energy companies are eager to import liquefied natural gas. It is a shift that could avoid gas shortages forecast for the future, but could also increase the nation's dependence on foreign energy supplies.

"Just as we're debating the need to diversify our oil supplies, we're faced with an array of challenges to secure reliable and politically stable sources of gas," said David G. Victor, director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University.

More than a dozen projects like the one here are seeking approval from regulators in North America, including several on the Gulf Coast and in the northern Mexican state of Baja California.

The United States is already the world's largest natural gas producer, and domestic production is expected to increase to 28.5 trillion cubic feet in 2020 from 19.1 trillion cubic feet in 2000, according to the Energy Information Administration. Still, demand is expected to far outstrip production, growing to 33.8 trillion cubic feet by 2020 from 22.8 trillion cubic feet in 2000.

The gas to close that gap - more than five trillion cubic feet, a 40 percent increase in 20 years - will have to come largely from outside the United States.

Almost all of America's imported natural gas currently comes by pipeline from Canada. But a growing market for gas within Canada and rapidly depleting Canadian wells are expected to weaken that country's ability to increase exports. Mexico, though believed to have large untapped gas reserves, is mired in nationalist debate over making it easier for foreign financiers and companies to explore for gas.

As a result, Mexico, a power in crude oil, is a growing importer of natural gas - and an attractive base for liquefied natural gas receiving terminals, which cost as much as $700 million to build. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development recently forecast that the percentage of North America's gas from imports would climb to 26 percent by 2030 from just 1 percent today.

Those imports will come mostly from developing nations like Equatorial Guinea, a former Spanish colony in West Africa where Marathon Oil of Houston plans to build an L.N.G. plant able to serve gas fields throughout the Gulf of Guinea.

Ambitious ventures are also under way in other West African countries, including Angola and Nigeria, where energy companies were recently burning gas escaping from oil drilling operations because there was no ready market for it. In the Middle East, small countries like Oman, a sultanate on the Strait of Hormuz, and Qatar, are emerging as important gas powers.

In South America, Trinidad and Tobago has become an early leader in exporting liquefied natural gas, although companies in Bolivia and Peru have had difficulties advancing efforts to export L.N.G. to California. Producers in Indonesia, Malaysia and Russia could step in to supply the West Coast, pushing the Andean countries to the margins of the business.

In some ways, the scramble for natural gas projects resembles the heady early days of the oil industry a century ago. Then, British, Dutch and American investors raced around the world to stake out interests in remote oil fields in the Middle East, Central Asia and the archipelagoes of the Java Sea.

Some regions are considered more promising than others. Industry executives point out that just three countries  Iran, Qatar and Russia  hold more than half of the world's natural gas reserves, inevitably focusing attention on the delicate interplay between politics and commerce in these places.

Russia, with the largest proven reserves, plans to start exporting liquefied natural gas in 2007 with deliveries to Japan. Iran, while off limits to American companies because of trade restrictions by the United States, has attracted Japanese, French, British, Indian and South Korean concerns interested in mounting gas ventures.

There are important differences, however, between past oil booms and the current interest in natural gas. For one thing, studies show the world will be swimming in natural gas supplies while oil reserves are expected to dwindle in the decades ahead. Just one area in Qatar, a monarchy near Saudi Arabia with fewer than a million people, is thought to have enough gas to supply the United States for 40 years, according to a study by Deutsche Bank.

The natural gas industry has to overcome several obstacles before evolving into a vibrant global market. Even with ample supplies there is no market for trading liquefied natural gas, as there is for crude oil. Instead, producers and customers sign long-term contracts, sometimes resulting in significant price differences from one year to the next or from one country to another.

One reason the natural gas market has remained fragmented is because the fuel is difficult and expensive to extract and transport. But these costs are declining, adding to the appeal of gas projects. Lord Browne, the chief executive of BP, said the cost of developing gas liquefaction plants had halved since the 1980's, while shipping costs had also fallen.

Shipbuilders are seeking to meet demand for tankers, with the global gas fleet expected to grow to 193 ships by 2006 from 136 in 2002, according to LNG One World, a gas- shipping information service operated by Drewry International of Britain and Nissho Iwai of Japan.

Natural gas is still not considered as crucial as oil for overall energy security since oil's main use is for transportation and there is no short-term alternative. Natural gas has a variety of important industrial uses, like serving as a raw material for fertilizer and generating electricity.

Still, the growth in demand for liquefied natural gas in the United States is expected to outstrip other parts of the world. It is likely to grow 35 percent in the next five years, compared with 20 percent in other North Atlantic countries and 12 percent worldwide, according to Deutsche Bank. Hence the rush to proceed with projects that supply liquefied natural gas to the United States.

"The world could be consuming more gas than oil by 2025," Philip Watts, the chairman of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, the large British-Dutch energy company, said in a recent address to industry executives in Tokyo. "We must be prepared for growing geopolitical turbulence and volatility in an increasingly interdependent world."

The United States has only five terminals capable of receiving L.N.G., including one in Puerto Rico. Almost 20 are on the drawing board, but opposition to the terminals has already prevented the start of work on several of them. Earlier this year, for instance, Shell and Bechtel Enterprises shelved a plan to build a terminal about 30 miles north of San Francisco because of stiff public opposition.

California remains perhaps the most difficult place in the country to gain approval for gas-receiving terminals. This has encouraged imaginative proposals like one last month from BHP Billiton, Australia's largest energy company, for a $600 million floating terminal 20 miles off the coast of Oxnard in the southern part of the state. It remains to be seen whether any of the California projects will be built.

An air of resignation hangs over even the critics of the plan to build the terminal on Quintana, which is scheduled to start operating by 2007. Officials from Freeport LNG have told residents that they expect to make more than $1 million a year in tax payments to the city, a substantial sum for a community of 40 homes that is the smallest municipality in Texas.

At the Jetties, a restaurant on the island's edge overlooking the brown water of the Gulf of Mexico, the walls are plastered with warnings of the perceived dangers of receiving tankers full of potentially combustible gas from far-flung parts of the world. But the restaurant's employees seem to believe that the terminal will be built, inevitably changing the island's easygoing atmosphere.

"People come out here to drink beer on the beach and look at the birds and the gulf," said Dana Difatta, a cook at the restaurant. "Imagine what they'll think when they're staring at some huge vats holding natural gas. Will they be horrified or relieved?"