India has long had a principled response to climate change negotiations: You can't expect the poor to act like the rich. The Rio conference in 1992 laid out the the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. This suggests that, while the world might all be hurtling towards impending disaster, it is the developed countries – whose unfettered industrialisation over the last two decades helped create the monster of climate change – that will have to do the heavy lifting in preventing those catastrophes. Now, more than two decades later, this principle is in danger.

A confidential note circulated by the United States last week displayed its intent to do away with this differentiation between developed and developing nations, thereby thoroughly undermining the acknowledgment of a historical asymmetry. The note calls for proposed carbon pledges to be determined independently by each nation rather than through international negotiation, a change that would allow it to use bilateral pressure rather than face combined opposition from developing nations at multilateral fora.

In effect, the US wants to do away with the old idea that developed nations bear a greater responsibility for a problem that they have created. By doing a bilateral deal with China on climate change, US President Barack Obama has even signaled to the world that he can get the largest and most influential of developing nations on his side. But there are plenty of nations unhappy with this attempt at rejigging the world order, and India is at the forefront.

In an Op-Ed published in the Financial Times newspaper, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi made it clear that New Delhi is not yet ready to give up the idea of common but differentiated responsibilities. The title of the piece alone sets the tone: "The rich world must take greater responsibility for climate change." One sentence, right in the middle of the piece effectively sketches out the tack that New Delhi is going to take in climate change negotiations.
"Justice demands that, with what little carbon we can still safely burn, developing countries are allowed to grow. The lifestyles of a few must not crowd out opportunities for the many still on the first steps of the development ladder."

Justice, developing countries, opportunities, these aren't exactly new terms for a statement from India, but the framing here is worth paying attention to. Climate justice has always been India's stated aim, so invoking that is to be expected, but creating the idea of the "little carbon we can still safely burn" is somewhat novel. Never mind the all-too-common bemoaning of greenhouse gases at these summits. Modi has, instead, clearly asserted that some carbon can be "safely burnt" and added that this ought to be earmarked for developing countries.

This is to suggest that India, which is heavily dependent on coal for power generation, is not only not apologising for it – a stance that power minister Piyush Goyal spelled out last week – but is going to label as "safe." India is clearly saying that its national ambition of industrialising and pulling people out of poverty cannot be held hostage by American hopes of distributing the climate change burden across more countries.

Of course, this only works because India has indeed committed to ambitious clean energy targets, with Modi promising massive cuts in emissions and a huge increase in the share of renewable energy in India's power mix. The Climate Action Tracker has indeed rated India's proposed commitments much higher than America's. Moreover, India has been able to take the moral high ground by talking of the assistance it offers to island nations and others particularly susceptible to climate change.

This allows Modi to make his stance even clearer:
"The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities should be the bedrock of our collective enterprise. Anything else would be morally wrong."