Remember, a recognition of “the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2°C”, towards which “deep cuts in global emissions are required”, was one of the few positives to emerge out of Copenhagen. But with so many stakeholders (from rich to poor countries) focused on combating an economic slowdown, prodding job growth and the like, the above realisation hasn’t caused anything like the consternation one would otherwise have expected. As for the inexorable slide towards Kyoto’s expiry, it appears to be counter-intuitively drawing some strong support. A Bloomberg New Energy Finance research note has pointed out, the protocol took 5 years to negotiate and 8 years to come into force, and energy-related emissions have risen 45 per cent since its base year of 1990, “If this is not failure, what on earth does failure look like?”

India has taken a small contingent to Durban, 30-strong as compared to China’s 150-strong. It has also emphatically backtracked from Jairam Ramesh’s Cancún claim that India was ready for legally binding emission cuts. But we are not as off-centre as it would first appear. The body of opinion arguing that the lack of a globally binding treaty or cuts doesn’t equal lack of meaningful progress has been growing, and for good reasons. Last year, for the first time ever, global investments in renewable energy, at $187 billion, surpassed investments in fossil fuels at $157 billion. This year, Australia has passed a carbon tax. India is on track in an ambitious solar mission and voluntarily committed to reducing CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by 20-25 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020. Apparently, it doesn’t take a global treaty to tackle climate change.