A universal per capita emission benchmark is therefore not only politically unfeasible, it delays the full emergence of greenhouse effect problems.

The second issue is more important. Over the next few decades, as we continue on a high growth path, the developing world will account for a very large part of greenhouse gas emissions. Since we are taking technologies and economic models from the West, we are likely to contribute to the mess in the same manner. The more successful we get, the greater the mess we will create.

Given these considerations some environmentalists that are calling for letting environment take precedence over growth even in poor countries. The argument being, survival precedes all growth and equity objectives. The problem with that argument is, it is highly unfair to the poorer countries and the poor within them. No leader would agree to something on these lines.

In other words, the Bali conference will at best delay the problem. Let’s take that as a given. We can go on with our respective posturing, but we should be aware that reducing emissions is not a sustainable solution to focus our efforts on. We need to find a better solution.

The eventual solution will come from technology. Nature has given us one such technology, photosynthesis. We need to develop others that can absorb CO2 and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere on a mass scale and at low costs. Instead of asking developed countries to reduce their emissions, we need to ask them to invest heavily in developing such technologies. The Bali agenda should therefore be a technology-driven agenda, on what technical solutions can be investigated further, how we can work together in doing this, how such research and development can be made profitable, how public- private and international partnerships can be created.

... contd.