The Durban divide is about legally binding emission cuts and a deadline for finalising a new global agreement. The EU wants to begin work on the agreement immediately, as do the vulnerable island states, have it ready by 2015 and operational by 2020. The US, Japan and Russia, along with India and Brazil, want a longer timeframe. India’s position still insists on “historical responsibility and equity”, whereby developed economies responsible for emissions for the last 200 years and thus global warming itself continue to take a larger share of the cuts. While this logic of “cumulative emissions” meets the argument for “current emissions” head on, the sense of outrage at a developing economy being denied its chance to grow is not without cause.

However, even as India insists on unconditional commitments by developed nations and opposes a legally binding deal, it should steer clear of appearing as a deal-breaker. There’s no reason why New Delhi should paint itself as the bad boy when there’s as much justification to its stand as there isn’t for its desperation. Delhi needs to communicate its position effectively, incrementally gain the understanding of others and explore the contours of the divide in order to bridge it. While India’s economy may not be ready for cuts on the basis of current emissions, as the fourth largest CO2 emitter, it cannot evade responsibility either.