Perchè alla Cop21 molto dipenderà dall’India?

Since Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power, President Obama has not missed many opportunities to convey what a warm rapport he has forged with the Indian leader. There was the admiring essay about Mr. Modi that Mr. Obama wrote in Time magazine, and the image of them tête-à-tête at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in Washington, their entourages left behind. Mr. Obama’s national security adviser said the two men had “chemistry” and expressed confidence that American interests made it “worth the investment in the relationship.”

Exactly how much that investment has paid off will become clear this week during the climate negotiations on the outskirts of Paris, where India, the world’s third-largest greenhouse gas polluter, has emerged as a pivotal player in shaping the outcome of a deal on which Mr. Obama hopes to build his legacy — or whether a deal emerges at all. So far, Indian negotiators have publicly staked out an uncompromising position.

India embodies a critical tension that will play out in Paris between developed nations like the United States, which are calling for universal emissions cuts, and developing nations like India, which say they deserve to increase fossil fuel use as their economies grow or else receive billions of dollars to make the transition to cleaner energy.

After Mr. Modi met Mr. Obama on Monday — their sixth meeting in 14 months — he told reporters that the two leaders had “such a deep relationship that we are able to openly discuss all issues,” and he said that he was happy to work “shoulder to shoulder with the United States.”

But in an earlier speech on Monday, Mr. Modi said climate change was not India’s fault, and blamed instead “the prosperity and progress of an industrial age powered by fossil fuel.” “But we in India face its consequences today,” he said.

That India has positioned itself as the champion of developing nations is no great surprise, based on past climate talks. But Mr. Modi, who wrote an e-book presenting the moral case for action on climate change, had been seen by American policy makers as a leader who might break that pattern.

Read more on The New York Times