The Paris Agreement on climate change will enter into force when it is ratified by at least 55 signatories accounting for 55% of greenhouse gas emissions. As of mid-September 28 countries accounting for 39% of emissions have signed. This includes only two of the largest emitters, China and USA, who announced their ratification at the G 20 meeting in early September this year. India has not yet indicated when it will ratify, though the process is simple and only requires a cabinet decision.

It is possible that the Government of India is going slow because of the concerns that have been raised  from the perspective of climate justice -- the dilution of the principle of common but differentiated responsibility and the rather cursory treatment of life-style changes.  The GOI is right on its insistence on these issues but that should not stop it from pursuing more climate friendly policies.

Over the past few years several countries and non-government climate warriors have mounted a campaign to shift the prime responsibility for action on to China and India on the ground that they will account for a very large part of the growth in emissions.  But the risk of catastrophic climate change depends not on the flow of emissions but on the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  A global carbon budget has to aim at an acceptable stock of carbon in the atmosphere. A paper by a group of Indian researchers  calculates that roughly half the carbon space available, if we wish to have at least a 50% chance of staying believed 2°C, has been occupied by 2009 and three quarters of this occupation is by cumulative emissions from the developed countries (Annex I countries in UNFCCC parlance).  A rational climate justice oriented calculation would require them not just to cut annual emissions but to move to negative emissions by implementing programs for carbon absorption so that they vacate carbon space for developing countries. They are not going to do that. But their attempt to shift the burden of adjustment to China, India and other developing countries should be contested in the UNFCC, in the global civil society discourse on climate and in the media.

One particular dimension of this blame game is the focus on coal consumption in China and India.  It is true that coal is the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel and China alone accounts for 50% of global consumption.  But why focus only on coal? Should we not take account of total fossil fuel related emissions? If we do that China's contribution, though large, drops to under 30%.  And why lump India whose fuel related emissions are barely 6% of the world total in 2013 with China? But alarmist assessments continue from Western sources. A recent report by a western environmental think tank projected India's future emissions on the basis of capacity expansion estimates that included many projects that were just ideas floated rather than investments under implementation.

India has also sought to bring a commitment on life-style changes into the climate process and there are some references to it in the Paris Agreement. But in practice the developed countries, USA in particular, have not been willing to negotiate life-style issues. The current focus on pledges to contain emissions from domestic production processes encourages this. It also encourages countries to look at solutions in the form of a technological fix. Focussing on the carbon footprint of domestic consumption will require attention to life-style issues and help to redress the perception that developing countries are responsible for the current increase in carbon emissions.  In 2004 more than 30% of consumption based emissions in most European countries, about 4 tons per capita and around 10% in USA, about 2.8 tons per capita, were imported and showed up as production emissions in exporting countries like China and India.

India must contest the distortions in the multilateral and bilateral, governmental and non-governmental climate debates. Indian think tanks and climate activists must be given resources to raise their voice and presence in global climate conclaves. We must contest but we must also  act to show that we take our own arguments seriously. It is in our national interest to do so. In fact a report by an Indian think-tank has demonstrated that a climate friendly energy policy can emerge from an exercise that aims at energy security, energy access and local pollution management treating carbon saving only as a side benefit.

Take coal use for instance. Coal based thermal plants are designed to be run as base load stations. But with solar, wind and nuclear power becoming a larger part of our capacity mix, we will face a dilemma. It makes sense to use the intermittent supplies from renewables fully as the marginal operating cost is virtually nil. Nuclear power plants have to be operated as base load stations for technical reasons. Storage hydro-power is an efficient way of balancing out supply fluctuations; but such hydro-power capacity is limited. Hence fossil fuel based stations, mainly coal based thermal plants, will have to play this balancing role and this will pose a challenge for their design and their economics. A thermal option that we should look at is gas based generation as global gas prices are falling and gas turbines are more flexible than coal based plants. Of course, depending on gas imports compromises energy security. But so will coal dependence since we will be net importers of coal given the growth in demand.

We also need to demonstrate our seriousness on life-style issues. About 5% of our population, which would be 60 million, around the size of the larger European countries, has a lifestyle whose energy use is more or less comparable to that in the developed countries.  We need to implement tax and regulatory policies that will stimulate lifestyle changes in this group.

Climate change and the extreme events heat waves, droughts and floods that it will bring in its train is a huge threat that our children will inherit.  We must counter the blame games that are being played in global forums. But we must also act urgently and vigorously to walk the talk. Contest but act.