Why? The problem cannot be addressed unless all countries participate and especially the big ones. At present 170 countries are participating in climate treaties. However, the momentum has slowed down since the US has withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol. In 1996, the US made its acceptance of quantitative greenhouse gas (GHG) targets dependent on developing countries like India and later tried to co-opt these countries through bilateral agreements.

While everyone recognises that at a per capita level the emissions of the latter are low, the sheer size of total emissions makes it critical to include the three largest emitters. However, the US tendency to unilateralism sets a dangerous precedent. If China and India join the US and go unilateral as large powers are often tempted to do, the climate policy regime will collapse risking the lives and livelihoods of the most vulnerable who are located mostly in developing countries as the Delhi Declaration of 2002 emphasised.

Indian foreign policy rhetoric has not changed much. In 1989, at Noordwijk, the government argued that it may be counter-productive to lay down targets for countries which are still striving to raise the living conditions of their masses. While preparing for the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, the government argued that the developed countries are primarily responsible for the emissions, that developing countries need to fulfil developmental needs first and that the North should transfer resources to the South in order to accelerate the response to climate change.

In June 2007, Pranab Mukherjee reiterated this position in Hamburg. The question is: Will not the impacts of the problem itself reduce the prospects for economic growth and poverty alleviation?

Developing countries are justified in their anger with the North about not having kept its side of the bargain. Climate change agreements are based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, for which the North should take action and show leadership. The North should make technologies and financial assistance available to the South for the South to develop sustainably. If the more debilitating consequences of climate change are to be avoided, global emissions of GHGs must peak in 2015.

With the US making its policy conditional on steps taken by key developing countries, there was a crisis of leadership. Developing countries want the North to take the first steps on emission cuts, while the US clings to technological solutions to bail them out of serious impacts. EU is moving ahead with a unilateral, unconditional target, in the hope of breaking this deadlock. However, without followers the problem will continue unabated and the risks for the 150 or so developing countries may be quite devastating.

India is taking a number of measures, China may be ahead. It has a national energy intensity target which it has divided among the provinces and is setting up a reward system for officials down to local level that recognises their contribution to environmental issues. While both China and India are leveraging international resources through the Clean Development Mechanism and the Global Environment Facility, this will not be enough to make more than a small dent in their energy policy. At the same time comprehensive solutions for countries like China and India are not likely to be found in the West.

The Nobel prize brings with it the responsibility for India to unleash its huge intellectual capital and mobilise all social actors in a small sustainable development revolution.