How do you see the outcome at the Lima round of climate talks?

I think a step forward, to have expected much more would have been unrealistic. At least now we have some kind of a roadmap for Paris. Well of course a lot has to be done if we are to have a solid agreement in Paris. However, I don't think the agreement will be radically different from what's been structured in Lima. Paris will at least give us a means to deal with this problem effectively and urgently.

An agreement will also send a signal to national governments, sub-national entities to take action. If we really want to deal with climate change, then action must take place at all levels. This includes individual lifestyle and behavioural changes.

What should India do to ensure that we have a just agreement at Paris?

I would like India to take a far more proactive role in negotiations. One thing that we done in Lima was to take credit for what we plan to do anyway, like the 100GW of solar, and am glad that the minister did it. I think that the equity issue is paramount and there are various ways to ensure that. We should keep equity clearly in focus as we look at how emissions are tracking. This is why I feel it is very important to have a review arrangement built into the agreement. For the first time the IPCC has come up with a budget on emissions, and if we are serious about limiting temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius then we can't lose sight of this budget.

This can only happen if we are able to regularly review where we are heading with respect to that budget. It is also an important area for discussion of equity and ethics. If we have got a limited amount of space, how are we going to share it? Is it going to be developed countries that are going to use up the space, or is it likely to be expanded in reductions in emissions by developed countries? So that developing countries can on an ethical basis expand their economies, get rid of poverty - all these are issues which have to be seen within the budget we have come up with. The discussion on equity has to be grounded in specifics, we should move beyond platitudes. And this is one area, where I would like India to come up with clear proposals.

What we have is a situation where the science has become more certain, yet the political action to tackle climate change is more feeble now than before. How do see this situation changing ahead of Paris?

This is why you have to be driven by knowledge: the 2 degree target is not utopia. At the high level segment in Lima, I mentioned that even with the 2 degree pathway, we will get a sea-level rise, by the end of the century, of 0.26-0.55 metre. Even if we take the middle of the range, that is 0.4 metre, what we will have is a lot of increase in sea level, and a major threat, which poses huge risks for several societies. So to those countries that view a review of efforts to tackle climate change as undesirable, I would like to ask: How are you going to stick to your target of 2 degrees unless you have a review of where you are going with respect to where you should be?

We are no longer talking in generalities, we now have specific numbers. Let me emphasise - the Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) had agreed that the period 2013-15 will be used to review whether temperature rise should be limited to 2 or 1.5 degrees, there was also a specific reference to the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report.

Well the report is there now. I would like to see some discussion on the temperature goal - is 2 degrees good enough? Or should it be 1.5 or 2.5 degrees, but let's discuss it and see what the world is willing to accept. Unless you have this kind of a focused discussion, you will never be able to make the case for a review. That case has to be made by countries that are concerned about the impacts of climate change.

There is a renewed push for economic growth, but how to ensure it doesn't happen at the cost of the environment?

I think the Prime Minister said it on Independence Day, and I would like the whole system pick up what he said—"no defect and no effect". If you are going to Make in India, then "no defect", that means we have to ensure high quality, and "no effect", which means the environment has to be preserved, the ecosystems of this country have to be preserved. I am surprised that people didn't really pick that up. My big grouse with our system is that ever since we became independent, we have never had an informed dialogue on the kind of economic development required for the country.

So first, we had the planned economy system, then when we opened up in 1991, we were completely bamboozled by the western concept of economic growth and development. But here are the facts: We are a highly populated country with limited land area, and a very fragile and precious ecosystem. We don't have a choice but to keep the ecosystem intact.

When we talk about economic growth and development, we have to make clear choices, remember that minimal impact on the environment presents a huge range of choices. We have come to grips with some of these choices, which have to my mind not been articulated.

My other concern is in the realm of the social-political-economic concern—we are setting up the manufacture of automobiles on a large scale, and that will make them a large and powerful lobby. Look at what happened to the US, they made sure that the railroad system was completely neglected. The old saying was that "What is good for General Motors is good for America". Are we going to get into a similar situation? That is not the right way to go. If we are setting up automobile manufacturing, then there needs to a clear charter, mandating that companies develop engines that have lower environmental impact in a set time span say of 10 years or so.

My concern is that while the Prime Minister very rightly said there should be no defect and no effect, we have done nothing to carry it forward into policy or action. And I think that is so crucially important for a country like India. Look at the air quality of Delhi, it is pathetic, and I think it is a crime to create conditions like this in the capital city. The worst sufferers are the poor and roadside dwellers who are exposed to emissions at such high intensity, coming on top the cold and poor nutrition. Are we helping anyone by creating the kind of air quality we have in Delhi?

This year's Delhi Sustainable Development Summit focuses on linking climate change and sustainable development. How do you get countries to see that action on both these issues actually benefit growth prospects?

There is a huge overlap between actions that are required to contain climate change and attaining sustainable development. If you are going to make towns, cities, and villages climate resilient, that is also going to lead to sustainable development. Some of the risks from climate change go against basic opportunities for development, whether sustainable or otherwise.

So if we want this society to develop, then we have to be sensitive to the impacts of climate change. We must put in place adaptation measures, and institutional structures by which we can deal with the impacts of climate change. This means that local bodies must be strengthened to take into account changes in precipitation patterns, impacts on agriculture, the possibility of extreme events, which will increase. All of this is not against development, and certainly not against sustainable development.

If you ruin the natural resources and ecosystems, then development will not be sustainable. This country has a serious problem of energy security, we are importing almost 90% of our hydrocarbon consumption. We have made projections based on rigorous modelling that if continue with business as usual, then by 2030-31 we will be importing 900MT of coal every year. Where is that coal going to come from? Do we have the port capacity, the transport infrastructure to move that coal?

That scary scenario we have to avoid at all cost. Limiting the emissions of greenhouse gases has huge co-benefits like energy security, better air quality. Every move we make away from these technologies, and methods of production and consumption, takes us towards sustainable development.