Consider another protocol India, in contrast, is keen on: free flow of nuclear technology. This week may see the Indo-US part of the protocol wrapped up. Multilateral negotiations will follow. Why is there so little hostility globally to the idea of India becoming an all but de jure nuclear power state? Because the world understands the aspirations of a fully functional democracy that is a trillion dollar economy and within striking distance of becoming a middle-income country. Yes, of course, the absolute number of the poor is still vast. But India is not recognised any longer as primarily a host to mass poverty. It’s India’s ability to tackle that poverty that impresses the world.

So India gets a nuclear break as an acknowledged economic power in the making. Yet it tells climate change negotiators that it is too poor to afford emission cuts. The two positions cannot be simultaneously and indefinitely maintained in global forums. There’s a dangerous irony here for Indian policymakers. India and its friends in Washington argued during the earlier phrase of nuclear talks that access to nuclear technology would help this country combat carbon emission problems that come from producing coal-fired electricity.

In his presentation to the US Senate committee on energy and natural resources during the nuclear deal hearings, David G. Victor — he runs a sustainable development study programme at Stanford, is adjunct fellow, science and technology, Council for Foreign Relations and a pro-deal expert — gave a remarkable estimate. Suppose India builds 20 GW (1 GW= 1 billion watts) of nuclear power capacity by 2020 — a US State Department projection — and therefore reduces coal-fired power production by an equivalent amount. Then, annual savings in CO2 emissions, at 142 million tonnes, “could be almost as large as the entire commitment of 25 EU nations to reducing emissions under the Kyoto Protocol”.

... contd.