India has been wary of a legally binding agreement, fearing that it would effectively cramp growth. It has argued there is a need to differentiate between past polluters (the Annex 1 industrialised nations of the Kyoto Protocol) and economies on a path of dramatic growth, which need to pull hundreds of millions of people out of the poverty trap, and that they would thus require incentives to veer from a carbon-heavy path. However, that “historical responsibility” argument competes with other considerations, namely, the urgent need to shield the most vulnerable small nations from the worst impacts of climate change, which require a concerted effort to stop temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels.

The impasse between the India-China-Brazil bloc and the US, which demands symmetrical obligations from them, has been excruciating — and Durban managed to extract some slender commonground. The EU aligned itself with the Alliance of Small Island States, exerting greater pressure on nations like India and China. Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan scored by inserting the word “equity” into the long-term cooperation agreement, and holding out for a less constraining set of words.

The modified terms, seeking an outcome with “legal force”, allow India greater latitude to design its own response even if it acknowledges the way ahead will involve concrete cuts. Though the specifics will have to be worked out in the near future, at least the Durban deal shines a light on the road ahead for India, which can then encourage technological and business innovation.