• We've all been educated by Mr Al Gore.

Not only Mr Gore but also Mr R.K. Pachauri and all his 2500 scientists. So there's now a change. Here's what I objected to. The report makes a very sensible suggestion that you have to reduce the rate of emissions. My problem with the report is that it throws out a number: if industrialised countries can reduce emissions by 80 per cent up to 2050 and if developing countries can cut it down by only 20 per cent, things will be all right. Now, the issue is how much should they cut and how much should we cut. My feeling is that they have produced a totally arbitrary combination, which is not actually equal, because even after these cuts, industrialised countries will have emissions per capita that are four times as high as that of developing countries. My point was, if you first want to decide what we should cut, I don't think that's the problem.

• So even 20 per cent of what they are emitting now will be more than 80 per cent of what we will be emitting in future.

No, no.

• Because we reduce by 20 per cent and they reduce by 80 per cent, and yet they are four times higher (in emission rates per capita).

Yes, that's because at the moment, for example, if you look at the United States, the carbon emission per capita in tonnes of carbon dioxide is roughly 20. In Europe it's about 12, in China about four, and India about one. Take the average of the United States and Europe as, say, 15. If they reduce that by 80 per cent, they will be at three, assuming population remains the same. If we reduce by 20 per cent, we will be 0.8 tonnes per capita. And that's 45 years later. My point was that it cannot be fair that you are projecting a reduction that leaves us on a per capita basis much below the rest of the world.

... contd.