The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) recognises the “common but differentiated responsibilities” of all countries. From this standpoint, the UNFCCC provides useful organising principles for global action at the level of nation-states, specifically: (i) developed countries should support poorer countries in their efforts to adjust to climate change; (ii) historic responsibility for emissions that have originated in developed countries (or polluter pays); and, (iii) the low per capita emissions in developing countries have to be accounted, thereby creating space for developing countries to “emit for prosperity” (while overall global emissions decline). Those who want to dilute the UNFCCC’s per capita centric principles overlook that the extant (excessive) atmospheric stock of GHGs is almost wholly due to the pursuit of economic well-being in developed countries.

Developing countries should not agree to formal targets for GHGs in any form at Bali. Formal targets should be eschewed in the absence of a well-funded and durable mechanism to (at the least) generously finance diffusion of carbon abatement technology. An integral feature of climate change is that the subject is about long horizons, and there is uncertainty about the scale and timing of the impacts. In the context of climate confabulations, this aspect is precisely what gives India an opportunity to gauge along two dimensions, say, over the next three years, whether rich countries are serious about doing their bit to retreat from the climatic precipice. The approach would be consistent with the gradualist policy advocated by some influential economists.

... contd.