The developing world was given, as I understand it, to grow emissions until 2025 or 2030 and then commit to reductions and caps. Which may have been appropriate for India and China in the 80s or 90s, but hardly in the 21st century. Yet the same measure was probably about perfect for somewhere like Vietnam or Cambodia -- presuming the world never committed to honouring the obligation to subsidise the developing world past the worst and dirtiest of development. Helping a too poor to renewable India never go coal would have been the better choice - even though it would have cost the developed world actual money.
Regarding Asia: I thought of this at a more global scale. Of course it's pointless cleaning up the pool if the other people at the party using it as a trash dump (but maybe someone has to start).
If developing countries aspire to an European life style this will come with more emissions (which you said, and I agree with you). I would be the last to claim that some people should have a less decent life than others.
But the people in those country can see where this path leads, and since they're still "developing" they can try to start on a better path (if they want to). They have the advantage that these days there is greener tech available, so there is no need to go down the dirty road that led us to where we are right now in the west: We dumped a lot of shit in the pool, and still do, and we act as if we can't do anything about it while we should get ourselves together rather sooner than later.
//edit: What I mean is, I think our lifes are little bit too decent; at least with the costs we're paying for them, e.g. by destroying our planet. [Queue pun on technical debt or raking up a bill our (grand-)kids have to pay]
There is no scenario for keeping us at 1.5 or 2C that allows the developing world to start living better lives that doesn’t involve the developed world going net negative in carbon emissions.