Economic growth is driven by inanimate sources of energy and developing countries，as they embark on the pathway towards securing standards of living comparable to the west，face irksome constraints from the depletion of the global environmental commons. If all countries were to go about their economic growth strategies in the “business as usual” mode，planet earth could soon sink rapidly towards the catastrophe of irreversible climate change.

Climate change is a global challenge that nations are called upon to confront with a common sense of purpose，without allowing nationalist ideologies and transient advantages on the geopolitical checkerboard to detract from longer-term goal. But this is precisely where inflexible national interests have most obtrusively come into play，causing bitter acrimony in all global negotiating forums.

Equity demands that theindustrialised countries which together bear direct responsibility for an estimated 80% of the accummulation of greenhouse gases （GHGs），should bear a proportionate share of the burden of averting the looming environmental catastrophe. At the same time，the industrialised countries have the responsibility of evolving an alternative to the highly carbon-intensive developmental paradigm that they have adopted and to make the underlying technologies and processes available in an affordable format to the developing world.

Industrialised countries （IC’s），with a few exceptions such as Germany and the U.K.，have resisted this common sense with an obduracy that has brought global climate change negotiations to a virtual standstill. IC’s continue to be in default on their obligations to cut GHG emissions，as agreed under the Kyoto protocol of 1992. Even the commitment to partly offset IC emissions by developing and funding mitigation strategies in developing countries，remains unmet in most part.

Kyoto was a partially successful agreement in that it imposed binding obligations on all the countries that have contributed to looming environmental catastrophe. It also enshrined the principle of “common and differentiated responsibilities” in accordance with the unmet developmental aspirations of particular countries and the historic role of the IC’s in the atmospheric buildup of GHGs. But in making the shrinking space of the global environmental commons a tradeable commodity that could be bought and sold-typically in a manner that would suit the compulsions of the industrialised countries-Kyoto set a very poor example for future negotiations.

A review of how farindustrialised countries had met emissions reduction targets，conducted just prior to the Copenhagen climate summit in December 2009，revealed serious defaults by virtually all. Yet the negotiations at Copenhagen failed to show any seriousness of intent and the yawning trust deficit between the IC’s and the developing world was if anything，enhanced by the procedures adopted. The declaration that finally emerged had nothing more substantive than an affirmation that the world’s poorest countries deserved added financial support to face the imminent challenges of climate change. This was regarded，rightly，as a betrayal of the mandate that the conference opened with，since the IC’s were expected at Copenhagen，to accept a measure of responsibility commensurate with their historic role in creating the atmospheric burden of GHGs.

India was among the countries press-ganged into a last minute compromise which proved a figleaf too paltry to cover the evidence of gross failure. Since Copenhagen，India has shown some signals that it is willing to move beyond its insistence that the developing countries’ obligations will begin to kick in only when the industrialised world has fulfilled its side of the bargain.

Policy circles inIndia are awakening now to the fact that the absolute volume of carbon emissions the country puts into the atmosphere is substantial. Though modest on a per capita basis，it is still a considerable addition to the GHG burden at a time when scientific research has found that the earlier target of reducing carbon concentration to 450 parts per million by volume （ppmv） by 2020 is over-generous. Though yet to be accepted within official multilateral forums，the call for a reduction to 350 ppmv by 2020-made by James Hansen，who has reasonable claims to being the world’s most respected climate scientist-cannot be ignored.

The only firm quantitative commitment thatIndia has made is in terms of per capita emissions. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has reportedly assured German Chancellor Angela Merkel that India’s per capita emissions will never exceed IC levels. This remains a covenant of uncertain validity and enforceability，but calculations by the Delhi Science Forum，an independent policy research group，have shown that if India were to follow a “business as usual scenario” and the western countries were to live upto commitments on emissions redu