A country like India or China could then turn that around a say if other countries that have a very high standard of life won't do anything then why should we.
Also the pollution in the last two-three centuries has been primarily First World led. Tell me how can Im as an Indian, tell the guy that he will have to wait some more time till we can get him to a basic living standard because cheaper options to get you there are off the table.
Per capita human emissions should be equal within reasonable bounds of geographical needs?
Or, to say it another way, many parts of India or other countries at this latitude have never been "suitable for human habitation" compared to e.g. France and her tempered climate. But humans adapted to this place, and will adapt to 2 degrees more if needs be.
Pretty much every species which has roamed the planet has gone extinct. Nature is tough. I think that's the point of emphasizing the phrasing.
If the goal is for humanity to survive on this planet, then clearly an exponential growth in population isn't sustainable. More fair would be to have quotas per square meter actually.
It is in the interests of Indians, as well as the rest of the globe, to try and short-cut past a lot of development that went on in the first world - precisely to avoid the horrific pollution that resulted from our lack of knowledge or greed. The first world should be assisting this.
By avoiding a lot of the smoke-stack development that the West went through they'd end up in a better overall place.
Meanwhile developing nations need to stop accepting our old crap (ships for scrapping, old TVs, stuff collected via roadside "recycling" such as UK cardboard) for disassembly on beaches. The sooner the First World owns the whole problem, the better.
Burning coal also contributes heavily to air pollution, which is already terrible in Indian cities. And air pollution isn't just a minor unpleasantness - it has a real impact on life expectancy.
Europe, America, and China are taking real steps to limit their greenhouse emissions. It's working, albeit very slowly. If India and the rest of the developing world don't follow suit, it's going to be a sad story.
It's really in their own best interest to take it more seriously.
it's not in my own interest to reduce my consumption and emissions. it's very much in my own interest for all of you to reduce your consumption and emissions.
it's easy for me to change my own behaviour, but very hard for me to coerce you to change your behaviour against your own interests.
it is in my interest to support global regulation of everyone's consumption and emissions, including my own, provided i believe i will gain more than i lose by participating.
Ethics, especially a la Kant, can help to address this shortcoming.
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law"
I like eating meal every day, but I cannot wish that this become the universal diet (especially of those 1b Indians). Therefore my ethical compass tell me to alter my food habits
Classic free-rider problem.
The Tories pretty much scrapped the lot the moment they got in power and are now full speed ahead trying to force fracking as the future. In locations far enough from London to not care tuppence about.