It is rather unusual, if not unimaginable, to expect the world's mightiest and the richest nation face the prospect of isolation. Yet that is what the United States of America, the sole super power of the world, faced at the two-week conference on climate in the holiday island of Bali in mid-December. The fear of becoming a pariah nation forced the US delegation at Bali to fall in line with the wishes of the majority of the 190 nations that had assembled in the hope of preparing the roadmap for a new climate treaty after the Kyoto protocol ends in 2012. And President George W. Bush of the US had lost no time in signing into law an energy bill which sets out some new conservation measures including higher fuel economy standards for new cars. He said the bill was 'a major step toward energy independence and easing global warming.' That remains to be seen. Critics were pointing out that the measures were too limited and not due for implementation for years. It was reported that some eleventh hour negotiations on the last day of the Bali conference culminated in the US come 'on board.' The US President had often said that the dire predictions about global warming were exaggerated and, hence, he continued to resist carbon emission curbs, enshrined in the Kyoto protocol. Whether Bush, soon to be out of office, now thinks those fears look real to him cannot be said. Doubts about the US in curbing emissions will linger because when it comes to protecting US business and trade interests there is really not much difference in the attitude of the Republican administration and the Democrats who are expected to sweep the next Presidential poll. The optimists returned from Bali claiming that a single notable gain at the end of two weeks of the often acrimonious deliberations was assigning forestry the key role in future climate change negotiations. The Kyoto protocol did not provide for a mechanism for protecting forests when deforestation accounts for up to 20 percent of man-made global warming. Environmentalists and scientists are almost unanimous in declaring that the world is doomed if the problem of greenhouse gas emissions is not dealt with urgency in the next few years. Carbon emissions stay in the air for 200 years! Some are already talking of the countdown to the doomsday beginning before the middle of this century, if efforts to curb carbon and other harmful emissions continue to be as casual as they have been so far. Small island nations and even mega coastal cities (including Mumbai) are in danger of being sunk by rising sea levels. The eco systems are overburdened, natural disasters are becoming more frequent and visions of a 'water war' have been raised because of recurring drought and fast depleting sources of water. All this points to urgency in dealing with the problem of climate change. The Kyoto protocol obliged the rich and industrialised nations to bring down by an average of 5 percent their greenhouse gas emissions from the 1990s levels during the period 2008-2012. The counting for the Kyoto targets actually begins on January 1, 2008 though the document was signed in 2005. But in the last three years emission levels have arisen in 6 of the 15 'old' European (industrialised) nations. The US was among the most glaring exceptions among the rich and highly industrialised nations that had refused to sign the Kyoto protocol. Luckily another rich nation that had followed the US example, Australia, just had a change of heart but only because elections brought a prime minister who had avowed to upturn his predecessor's anti-Kyoto stance. Many have advocated a commitment by the rich nations to reduce emissions by 40 percent by the year 2020. The need is to limit carbon concentrates to about 400 ppm, which was 280 ppm in the pre-industrial era and currently averages 380 ppm. To achieve that target it may be necessary for the world, especially the rich nations, to alter their rather lavish and wasteful style of living which is in stark contrast to the continuing abysmal poverty in the developing world. Action has to begin in right earnest; the average rise in global temperature has to be restricted to less than 2 degree Celsius above the pre-industrial era levels. In another half a century global emissions must approximate near zero. There are some climate control measures which can be put in place without generating any controversy. Some of them are: change the crop pattern and species; improve sea defence and flood protection; curb water use in drought-hit areas; install early warning systems for extreme events. For a country like India, the efforts at climate control do pose a dilemma. There is no doubt that if India has to maintain a higher growth trajectory it will not find it easy to curb emissions very strictly. Predictions are that in a few years time India will be the second highest polluter after China. Aware of this danger that will come from India (and China) the developed and rich nations have started to talk tough against India, asking it to embark on the low emission route right now. The dilemma is that without the replacement of the conventional sources of energy by the cleaner-but expensive--technologies India will find it hard to meet any 'tough' climate targets that it might be asked to accept. India and many other developing countries, including China, think it is unfair to ask them to cut their emissions (at the cost of development) when the climate problem is primarily the creation of the rich and industrialised nations, led by the US. The poorer nations are being asked to pay for the sins of the rich nations who should first set an example by lowering their emissions. It helps neither India nor the world to enter into arguments over 'you first' on the question of obligations for curbing greenhouse gas emissions. The US may not have any moral right to ask countries like India to mind their carbon emissions in view of their own record on emissions, but in future the developing nations, eager to catch up with the industrialised rich nations, will be bigger emitters than the developed nations. It is obvious that both the developed and the developing nations have to act together because our planet can be saved only when all the nations of the world act resolutely to arrest the adverse effects of global warming. Chandra Mohan, -Syndicate Features