a. Agreed. There is palpable fear amongst the americans of their economic vulnerability in relation to china and may be india. But the american government has nobody else to blame but itself for the crisis it is in currently. To allow this as a reason to shirk away from historical responsibility to climate change is the excuse that I talk of earlier. Does this mean I expect the states to lead the world in solving this problem? Nope. Out will not and cannot. But it is frustrating when they don’t even accept their huge historical responsibility and instead throw the gauntlet at the developing world.

b. EU leadership to me still has not faced the test of time. Agree with you on their role in durban as bridge makers but I’ll will not jump the gun till I see how it weathers the euro zone debt storm and reacts in the next two years. I see its stance changing pretty soon.

c. Jairam ramesh from what I understand felt that strong pledge and review goals could go a long way rather than weak targets under a legally binding regime. I don’t know about that but if we have to learn from experience, these international treaties hardly lead to anything unless nation states see strong economic xmas political benefits in shifting away from bau.

d. Would be good to talk to the eco equity and the greenhouse development rights people. Have not heard from them lately on carbon budgeting ever since they proposed it first in poznan where out made a lot of sense to me. indias carbon budgeting report by the way demands negative emissions from the developed world by the 2030s. : p pipe dreaming!?!

e. yeah, within india those rich vs poor and those class divisions still exist and will remain to exist for decades to come, so I suppose our solutions will end up echoing those perceptions.

f. Agreed. Argh, wish there was an easier way to deal with this but the more I look into it the more I see the need for equity. Yes the indian government has played it like a broken record on loop for two decades but the fact remains that the inability of the global negotiations to address the equity issue is a testimony of the complexity of this issue and cannot be looked at as the stubbornness or political rigidity of one nation.

Responding to your comments one by one:

1. I agree- countries are holding out for many reasons like domestic constraints such the US Congress. This reasserts my initial argument regarding why countries are holding out. It is basically impossible to expect a House of Representatives like the current one to pass climate legislation on anything that doesn’t include India and China somehow- hence, preservation of the annex 1-non annex 1 distinction is a hurdle. I wouldn’t call this an ‘excuse’ though. There is palpable fear and a huge sense of economic vulnerability amongst the Americans, esp to competition from the Indians and Chinese (if the bashing on China’s currency and India’s outsourcing is any indication), and without paying lipservice to this, the U.S. will continue to remain out of the deal.

2. Second, I don’t mean to be glorifying the EU at all. However, they did show leadership and I think we need to give them credit for that. Clearly, they can do more to mitigate- that’s another story and beyond the ambit of my write up. But in terms of keeping the climate negotiations alive, we need to acknowledge their leadership (something that was missing during Copenhagen). I would even argue that they were critical in getting the Africa Group and the LDCs behind the Durban Platform.

3.Yes, putting the cart before the horse wouldn’t be nice. However, not demanding a legally binding regime seemed like being willing to accept the status quo of Cancun pledges. I think this goes to a more fundamental question of do we need binding treaties to get countries to act.

4. Regarding the extent of mitigation. I agree with you as well and I’ll leave the question of ambition unanswered for another blog post However, what I see as being the problem is focusing solely on carbon and forgetting everything else. Like I argue in the post, we don’t want GHGs for their own sake;

5. I guess ‘Nehruvian’ might have been a better descriptor. The argument, eitherway, remains that there is an element of ‘rich against the poor countries type of classist’ orientation in the way India frames its arguments. Hence, I called it ‘post Independence socialist thinking’.

6. I’m not contesting the very notion of equity at all. Instead, I was trying to be facetious through the title regarding how India has framed the debate on equity. And, again, can’t agree more. There really is no substitute for strong local action. However, when the quotes of Dasgupta in 1988 are basically the same as Natarajan’s or Rashmi’s in 2011- we really have to question whether India is achieving anything by such posturing. I’m inclined to say: When facts change, I change my theories, what do you do sir?

a. Quoting from your article: “However, the insistence on the preservation of this distinction had been the very reason why the major historical emitters like the USA and EU were holding out.”- I don’t this argument holds water. The states is holding out for a lot of other reasons (read, the senate/congress controlled by the corporations) and they have a convenient excuse in blaming India, China. I do not understand the logic of glorifying the EU at these COPs when their commitments are clearly off whats required. 20% cuts by 2020 when we know most of it has already been met through trading and other means is not a real target without higher ambition.

b. India’s internal inequity is indeed a matter of concern and I have been disturbed by it for quite some time. But these arguments are not discussed at international negotiations and therefore cannot be allowed as giveaways for developed nations to use as political tools to push India or other developing countries into any deal.

c. At Durban, most nations and civil society demanded for a legally binding outcome. It clearly is a case of putting the horse before the carriage when mitigation targets are inadequate and a legally binding framework for weak goals is meaningless.

d.India might not be seen as speaking anymore for the G77 or the BASIC but the principle of carbon budgets if quite essential. Why? Extensive analysis by multiple groups have clearly indicated that developing nations have done a lot more than developed nations in terms of mitigating GHG’s (SEI study for example). This fact is sufficient to convince me that any deal that is not lead by the developed nations with strong commitments cannot be accepted.

e. Quote: “Perhaps this is resonant of the post Independence era socialist thinking; perhaps it reflects a country grappling to reconcile the challenges of being a developing country with its sense of civilizational greatness.”- Your quote earlier in the post of India’s leadership in the non aligned movement seems to contradict this. And yes, post India socialism did provide an alternative to an otherwise U.S vs USSR world. Applying this to climate change? I am not sure if I get it.

f. Equity is essential. The urgency to address climate change through an inadequate process of the UNFCCC by wrangling a deal out of developing countries will not lead us anywhere in solving the problem. The solutions lie back home, in India, in the states, in EU etc where people powered movements can bring about electoral change and push national Governments to adopt strong climate policies!

This is a debate that is very important. Would love to hear more on this. I have more to say but will reserve that for future comments.

Cheers