• So you set the benchmark.

You set the benchmark, you do what has to be done, you cut down your per capita emissions, and we'll stay within that. What I said to UNDP was, why didn't they adopt the per capita approach, why didn't they adopt the approach that, suppose the world were to accept this offer, how much per capita would the industrialised world have to cut in order to reach a sensible equilibrium?

• But you are not saying that they are exaggerating the threat or the crisis?

No, I believe that there's a crisis. (But) . . . there's never certainty and all scientists will tell you there's a range. I think the UNDP report correctly summarises the range of outcomes. What I think that most people don't realise is if we have a two degrees Centigrade rise in temperature, what does it do? Now the facts are, Himalayan glaciers melting faster, sea levels rising because of the melting of icebergs and so on, monsoons could be seriously affected, the water flow in our rivers initially would go up and then dry out.

• Yes, because glaciers would melt and then disappear.

Now, on the other hand, you have technology. Maybe, our water conservation technology would improve, maybe we'll be able to discover the kind of wheat that can tolerate temperature stress. But actually, when faced with this, there are two things that you have to do. One is adaptation, you accept.

... contd.