As the curtain falls on the two week long Copenhagen Climate Summit, it is perhaps time for reflection. As UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon put it, the Copenhagen Accord “lays a good foundation” to further build on it. It sought to capture the positives, thus far, to further evolve consensus.

Importantly, in the run up to the Summit, most major nations had announced their approaches. The Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh informed the Indian Parliament on Dec. 3 that India would cut its carbon intensity by up to 25 percent.

Some critics have been quick to denounce this as insignificant. However, to be fair, the India case needs to be viewed in perspective. India helped salvage Copenhagen by being part of the Copenhagen Accord.

Carbon intensity denotes the proportion of the use of fossil fuels per unit of GDP. The base year for the Indian case is 2005. The closer the base year, the stiffer the target becomes as nations progressively strive to attain energy efficiency. For example, India has already reduced its carbon intensity by 17 percent since 1990. To give credit where credit is due, India has been ambitious in taking 2005 as the base year, whereas 1990 would have been more convenient.

When we discuss the emission levels, it needs to be borne in mind that India’s emissions are but a fraction of the global figure – just about 4 percent (while the Indian population is 16 percent of the world), or one fourth of the global average. This needs to be seen in comparison to 20 percent for the United States and 16 percent for China.

If you take per capita emissions, then the differences are even starker. India emits about 1.1 metric tons of carbon dioxide per annum, while the corresponding figures for the United States are more than 20 metric tons, and for OECD countries the average is above 10 metric tons. If we accept that all citizens of the world have an equal right to the global resource of the atmosphere, per capita emissions shall become central to the discourse on climate change.

Building global consensus on climate change is a complex task. The approach, logically, should be to build on what has been collectively agreed to in the past. For example, a concept that was agreed to at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) is the historical responsibility of different nations. This is to say that climate change takes place because of the cumulative buildup of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere. This has happened over the two centuries since the start of the Industrial Revolution. The British Environment Secretary conveniently says to developing countries, “Do not do as we did, but do as we say,” because we did not know any other way or the environmental damage we were causing. But fortunately, the countries with historical responsibility are also the affluent countries, which can afford to share the burden now. This naturally needs to be taken into consideration, and need not be reopened.

That is why the UNFCC had determined that various nations have common but differentiated responsibilities towards addressing climate change. In climate change theology, this is an important mantra.

Accordingly, the Kyoto Protocol has categorized nations into Annex I countries and the rest. India contends that this differentiation needs to be maintained and cannot be undone.

Thirty-seven industrialized countries labeled Annex I in the Kyoto Protocol committed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions for a 15-year period from 1997 to 2012. The time has come now to review these commitments. Unfortunately, most of the Annex I countries have actually increased their emissions, let alone cut them.

The United States stayed out of the Kyoto Protocol under the Presidency of George Bush, who believed that environmental restrictions would undermine its competitive edge. Unfortunately, a linkage that is against the spirit of the UNFCC is sought to be made that the United States cannot pledge to cut its emissions unless and until major emitters also join the effort. This has had the effect of obfuscating the issue, rather than dealing with it on merits or equity.

Uninformed sections of the media routinely lump India among the major emitters, although it is marginal in terms of emissions. With a per capita annual emission of 1 metric ton per annum, which is one fourth the global average, how can we call India is a major emitter or a free rider, as Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh had questioned rightly during his intervention in the G-8 summit in 2008. Ever since, preparatory deliberations on climate change had come to be called Major Economies Meetings, which were originally conceived as Major Emitters Meetings.

Dr. Manmohan Singh offered an interesting formulation. He said, “India is determined that even as we pursue our economic growth and development, our per capita emissions will not go beyond those of the developed countries.” But this convergence idea is also a challenge to the developed countries. “The quicker you reduce your emissions, the greater the incentive for us to follow.” In other words, the Prime Minister of India had long set the ball rolling way back in August 2008, setting sights high for Copenhagen.

India set forth the principle of the need to strike a balance between development and environment. Obviously, the developmental imperative cannot be held hostage to the environmental concerns. In India, about 600 million people still live without access to modern energy sources. Can we tell them that they will not have electric power or running water lest hell should break loose due to anthropogenic excesses elsewhere? Is it fair and civil?

Even while putting forth its point of view, at home, India has launched several domestic adaptation and mitigation measures on a voluntary and systematic basis. Prime Minister Singh launched the National Action Plan in July 2008. This includes eight National Missions in the areas of solar energy, the extensive deployment of renewables, the use of clean coal technologies, boosting energy efficiency, the adoption of green building codes, large scale reforestation efforts and the promotion of agriculture. As part of the action plan, many of the mitigation efforts in sectors such as energy, transport, industry, agriculture and forestry will have specific quantitative and time-bound domestic goals. What is more, the National Action Plan also provides for mid-term review and deadlines. India, of course, can do much more if international cooperation in terms of finance and environmentally-friendly technology is forthcoming.

India not only joined international efforts constructively, but also hosted a major international conference on technology cooperation for climate change in New Delhi in October 2009 to highlight its sincerity.

India seeks a rather pertinent distinction between survival emissions and lifestyle emissions. If we provide basic energy services to the rural poor in India that will inevitably result in higher emissions. But can this be equated to higher emissions as a result of high speed limits, or no speed limits at all, on highways in Europe?

Indians by nature are frugal and recycling and refraining from waste is innate to Indian traditions and ethos. India recycles over 70 percent of its waste, while this figure is only 30 percent in the United States and less than 50 percent in Germany.

What does India expect from the continuing talks? India would like to see an outcome that is rooted in equity; respect the provisions and principles of UNFCC, in particular the common but differentiated responsibilities, and also historical responsibilities. The outcome should ensure that developing countries can pursue accelerated development to provide basic amenities to their citizens and also that the developing nations have the requisite resources to cope with the challenges of climate change. India hopes that the resulting mechanism will provide for financial resources and access to technology that will enable the upgrading of India’s national effort. What is certainly not acceptable is trade protectionism or an environmental tax in the garb of environmental concern.

The writer, based in Boston, keeps an abiding interest in climate change as it involves us all. He is a senior architect of IT software and is a Director of Snovasoftware.