As the country coughs and splutters its way into winter, the realities of climate change and its attendant environmental consequences become all too evident. It was never like this; India&’s winter was a time of renewal of body and spirit, a crisp, life-giving interlude before the seasonal cycle resumed. But in only a couple of generations all that has changed and pollution has had an ever-increasing impact on the country. Climate change and its consequences, that seemed distant phenomena affecting others, not us, are now all around us. Health hazards have increased and there is real public concern about the fallout from the environmental deterioration that has scarred the cities as well as the countryside.

Some belated signs of addressing the issue in patches here and there, not in any comprehensive manner, are to be seen, but on the whole there is little expectation that matters will improve and we seem obliged to prepare for even worse ahead. Beyond the adverse effect on daily life, there is growing awareness of wider phenomena with damaging impact on water in the rivers and under the ground, and growing uncertainties about the weather.

This unwelcome list of what is going wrong can be greatly expanded and there can be no doubting the gravity of the issues that are before the conference on climate change now under way in Paris. This is the latest in a series of UN conferences on the subject, going back to Stockholm in 1972, to persuade member states to pay heed and take remedial steps before it is too late. India has had a leading role from the start: Mrs Indira Gandhi, renowned for her awareness of the seriousness of the environment issue long before other world leaders took much notice, was the sole Head of Government at Stockholm other than the host PM.

Two decades later came the Rio conference, where the gathered world leaders began to show greater earnestness in addressing the issue of climate change. There were still those who questioned the science and were unconvinced of the reality and dimension of the phenomenon, the sceptics being especially prominent in the USA. Such disbelief about basic facts and about the broader purposes of the conference made it difficult to arrive at the binding commitments demanded by some more active proponents of global remedies for the environment but neverthelessRio became a landmark event. It led to the setting up of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) which has done stalwart work in driving international action on the issue.

Developed and developing countries, however, were hard put to come to agreement when funding of a programme for environmental protection came under consideration. As in several other UN-led funds of global applicability, the developed countries were to be tapped as donors of funds and technologies to meet the needs of developing countries that are short of both – a process that is always problematical. And there is a particular edge to the funding debate when it comes to environmental issues, as all the evidence indicates that the main source of the trouble is the pattern of development followed by industrialized countries that ignored the damaging effect of what they were doing; hence, it is argued, it is for them to take the lead in making restitution. Interestingly, at Rio India and China were able to make common cause and stand firm against efforts to dilute the responsibility of industrialized countries. Subsequently, at Kyoto a few years later, an important protocol to the earlier treaty was agreed, giving more concrete shape to the obligations of all the participants.

Not all parties were content with what had emerged, for some thought that major developing countries like India and China that were industrializing rapidly should be asked to keep step with the old polluters in the battle to reduce emission. It was argued, especially in the USA, that earlier conference decisions giving more time to these two countries, among others, to meet emission targets were deficient and should be revised. Attempts to spread this thought and give it operational significance were made at different levels, official and non-official, bringing a certain amount of pressure to bear on developing countries and complicating matters considerably. An echo of that earlier controversy has been heard recently with the US Secretary of State pointing to India as a questionable factor at the Paris conference.

Nevertheless, in Paris, the developing countries are likely to return to the attack and try to nail down more definitively various important provisions of earlier treaties, for what has been agreed, though not implemented, already gives them the breathing space they must have to cut down industrial pollution from their factories and restrict other hazardous practices affecting the environment.

Very substantial funding will be needed if alternative remedies are to be found; ambitious commitments made at previous conferences can make a difference and promote concerted international effort, without which the picture would look gloomy indeed. However, it is bound to be a tough job to get the funds to flow, especially at this time when the rich countries are beset with their own problems and seem in no mood for generous gestures. Note however, that Canada, true to its liberal traditions, announced a large contribution as preparations for the conference began to take shape, perhaps in the hope of encouraging others to do likewise. In all events, there is likely to be a considerable tussle on this point and India may be under pressure, for though it is a developing country it is now seen as a big polluter that must set its house in order. China, the other big polluter among developing countries, has eased its previous stand and may not follow the earlier line of the developing countries as closely as before.

The Paris Conference is thus likely to be testing and hard-fought. Like others in the series, its important purpose is to stimulate much greater activity at home and to encourage member governments to take remedial action. In this, as our lungs daily tell us, we in India have lagged behind. What is decided at Paris will have little meaning for us if it does not at the same time induce us to improve our own practices in environmental protection at home. It does not always require sophisticated technology or large investment to achieve results: we only have to look at our neighbour Bhutan to see what can be accomplished through stringent regulation and vigilance.

In preliminary remarks about the conference, Mr Modi has stressed the principle of equity, which is indeed fundamental. No less basic, however, is promotion of a well-judged domestic programme to reverse the trend towards accelerating environmental deterioration.