So was Ireland, were not doing too bad now, thank you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)
Similar circumstances accompanied the Holodomor -- the Ukranian famine (then part of the USSR) from 1932-1933 in which 2.4-7.5 million people died, again while food was being exported to support the Russian SSR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ukrainian_famine
The point: history is rife with inequities. Addressing the problems we face now is going to have to involve setting those aside. I've speculated that it might be literacy (allowing records of the inequities to be preserved) which has a certain relationship with perpetrating the memory of such injustices (though it's also been pointed out that ignorant societies can be mobilized by demagogues).
In the instant case, I think it's fair for India to call for concessions by industrialized nations, but it's ultimately self-defeating to pursue a "growth" policy which will be anything but.
You are not going to get India on board by claiming Ireland had it just as bad. India's GDP per capita is $1500. Ireland's is $45000. That's a factor of 30.
China is going to think the same way. They are going to see any bluster from western countries about emissions as thinly veiled attacks on their ability to industrialize. That's a perfectly reasonable opinion.
There are plenty of developing nations with their own histories of conflict. India and Pakistan come to mind. Much of Africa. Much of SE Asia and (take your pick) Japan and/or China (I'm omitting the colonial cases of Britain, France, the Netherlands, and the US here).
So: you're wearing LDC blinders. And my broader point is we need to get over this. Not ignore it, but get over it.
In the context of emissions, it's perfectly reasonable for a developing country to say "Well, we were just colonized, so we're not really keen on reducing our competitiveness to fix a problem you created" to a western country. "History is rife with inequities", will not mean anything to them.
And if you want to fix the problem of emissions, you need to understand that, instead of just saying "Well these developing countries are sure being jerks by blocking talks!"
What is an LDC blinder, btw?
Blocking talks (and I'll have to give the article / broader story a closer read to see how accurate that is) is a dick move, plain and simple. Making an alternate proposal (and I'd be more than happy to consider normalizing CO2 emissions per capita as an alternative) would work for me.
When a significant aspect of the Slate article dealt not with CO2 emissions but with HFCs -- hydroflourocarbons, used as refrigerants and themselves potent and long-lived greenhouse gases -- it becomes rather more difficult to pull the carbon / colonization card. Which is just what India are doing here.
You've gone on the attack against several people in this thread, largely on the "India was oppressed" card. Not to put too fine a point on it: that's not productive. If you want to introduce that fact into your debate, I'd suggest finding an alternative argument.
If you care about emissions, you need to understand that. Saying that they are making dick moves for making perfect reasonable, rational decisions given their position will not be compelling to them.
Mind: the industrialized Western nations need to learn this as well.
"Because, Colonization"
argument is silly, both Ireland and India were colonized for prolonged periods, both experienced extreme hardships in that time (and some benefits too of British rule)
both became independent roughly around same time, yet now both have very different standard of living for average person
blaming colonization is stupid when there are multiple other variables present
India was colonized and India has access to better technology and medicine compared to the original industrialized nations during their time to industrialize. Both are facts.
Regardless, India does not have an incentive to care about Ireland's or anyone else's path to industrialization. This is important if you want to convince India to adopt emissions standards.
About your argument, it is very easy to assume you are implying something very sinister. You mention that two countries had roughly the same colonial past and gained independence at roughly the same time, but one country is 30 times more productive per capita.
It is reasonable to expect someone to assume you are implying that one country's people are 30 times better than the other's. That is obviously putting words in your mouth, but you left a lot in your argument to the imagination.
I was pointing out that it is disingenuous to claim India has different circumstances if you are going to point out technology and medicine, but not that it was colonized as recently as the late 40s.
If you want to point out countries that are doing fine after colonization, I would think America would be the best example.