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.
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.