• And maybe to get there, we have to almost de-industrialise.

That we won't. Let's put it this way. How effectively you can cut down emissions can't be predicted now with the present technology. With present technology, it will definitely mean de-industrialisation. But the assumption is that if the industrialised nations were to decide that we are going to reduce emissions, billions of dollars would go into new research, new technologies, and we would be able to benefit from them, though there is an issue of how much it would cost us. My point really was that you should all start with a principle, and the principle is that we are all on one planet and the world needs to cut emission. You should first ask, what's a fair way of deciding the cuts? My point is that deciding cuts from a base level is not a fair way. One way is that everybody in the world should have an equal carbon footprint: how much pollution there is per person should be equalised. I mean there is a kind of simplicity about that. You could think of other principles. You could say, for example, that the West has done most of the emissions for the last 140 years and the problem that we have is because of the total emissions that have been done in the last 140 years, so actually it shouldn't be per capita. We should be a little higher and they should be a little low because of all the damage that they have done. Another view could be that richer people should be put under greater stress than poorer people. And let me say that this is relevant even within the country. I mean, within India, if we have to cut emissions, the burden should be more on the rich and less on the poor, and indeed in any normal society that would happen. So my point is that if it's a global society and you want a global decision, you have got to reflect that in the principle. The UNDP report does not mention any reason why . . .

... contd.