India won't sign "Climate Change" agreement

No big surprise here. If they sign it then they agree to be uncompetitive in the world market. Basically its a form of world socialism that levels the playing field and taxes industrialized nations and emerging industrializing nations.

The long and short is that India has no desire to sign on to anything that will inhibit its growth. Especially something the US pushes because, "his developing nation won't bow to climate change rules imposed by a country that spent the last 200 years ignoring the environment while it built up its own economy."

I have little doubt that Clinton will come back and again talk about how we have to "lead the charge" to "repair" everything evil we've done.

We hamstring ourselves and they only have to battle it out with China to be the #1 economy.

You can read it here: India's Environment Minister Rebuffs Clinton's Climate Change Proposals - Political News - FOXNews.com

Not having a go at the USA, As Australian has large carbon emissions Per capita and maybe even higher than the USA.
I don't know the answers. But what I do know is that it would be morally wrong to expect other nations (like India) to reduce there emissions Per Capita when they are extremely lower than ours. I personally could never expect that, to do so would be hypocritical.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions By Country

Country Year CO2e Mt / Pop M = CO2e t/person

Albania 1994 7.06 / 3.20 = 2.21

Australia 2000 535.30 / 19.44 = 27.54

Canada 2004 740.00 / 31.56 = 23.45

China 1994 3650.00 / 1198.50 = 3.05

European Union 1999 4030.00 / 375.30 = 10.74

Hong Kong 2003 43.5 / 6.803 = 6.39

India 2001 1228.54 / 914.00 = 1.34

Indonesia 1994 904.433 / 191 = 4.74

Iran 1994 417.01 / 57.67 = 7.23

Israel 1996 62.71 / 5.69 = 11.02

Japan 2002 1224.98 / 126.93 = 9.65

Laos 1990 0 / 4.57 = 0.0

Malaysia 1994 76 / 20.1 = 3.78

Marshall Islands 1990 0.0025 / 0.055 = 0.05

Mexico 2000 686.10 / 97.48 = 7.04

Micronesia 1997 0 / 0.106 = 0.0

Mongolia 1998 15.6 / 2.42 = 6.45

Nauru 1994 0.019 / 0.013 = 1.46

Netherlands 1999 174.10 / 15.80 = 11.02

New Zealand 1999 54.70 / 3.79 = 14.43

Niue 1994 0 / 0.002 = 0.0

Philippines 1994 100.738 / 73.527 = 1.37

Russian Federation 1999 1880.00 / 145.60 = 12.91

Samoa 1999 0.43 / 0.17 = 2.53

Singapore 1994 26.80 / 3.20 = 8.38

Solomon Islands 1994 0.32258 / 0.4 = 0.81

South Africa 1994 379.84 / 40.60 = 9.36

South Korea 1995 391.7 / 45.09 = 8.69

Sweden 2003 70.6 / 8.98 = 7.86

Thailand 1994 286.37 / 62.00 = 4.62

United Kingdom 2006 656.00 / 59.60 = 11.01

US 2002 6746.00 / 280.00 = 24.09

Zimbabwe 1994 0.00 / 10.64 = 0.0





http://www.carbonplanet.com/country_emissions

daedong said:

But what I do know is that it would be morally wrong to expect other nations (like India) to reduce there emissions Per Capita when they are extremely lower than ours. I personally could never expect that, to do so would be hypocritical.

Click to expand...

Vin,

I somewhat agree with you but not totally. Even though their emissions are lower it does not mean that they can't get on the band wagon with the rest of world and help out. This is a case where every bit helps and if they are not willing help the world as a whole then that is wrong also.


murph

Murph, the main reason that India's carbon emissions are low per person is because of their HUGE population. Measure their carbon emissions per square mile and you'll see a different story.

B_Skurka said:

Murph, the main reason that India's carbon emissions are low per person is because of their HUGE population. Measure their carbon emissions per square mile and you'll see a different story.

Click to expand...

Bob,

I didn't even look into or think of that. My point is that this is everybody's problem and everybody should be doing their part. If their emissions are low because of population then it would be morally right to ask them to cut emissions.

If you buy in to the "greenhouse gas" hoopla.

RedRocker said:

If you buy in to the "greenhouse gas" hoopla.

Click to expand...

Amen to that! Not only is the whole concept of a man-made climate impact still arguable; I think the way they evaluate different countries potential impact is flawed.

If you are going to apply a comparative metric with which to gage different countries contributions, I don't think either population or square miles is an appropriate measure. It would seem more logical to apply a standard that evaluated emissions generated versus true productive output.

The goal should be to produce the greatest good with the least negative impact on the environment.

Of course therein lays the problem; that is really not the goal.

B_Skurka said:

Murph, the main reason that India's carbon emissions are low per person is because of their HUGE population. Measure their carbon emissions per square mile and you'll see a different story.

Click to expand...

thcri said:

Bob,

I didn't even look into or think of that. My point is that this is everybody's problem and everybody should be doing their part. If their emissions are low because of population then it would be morally right to ask them to cut emissions.

Click to expand...

Based on this "logic" Australia may as well just burn as much coal as possible (about 800 years worth) and save costs of R&D and all other more expensive resources. Sorry Galvatron, Ice Queen you better go back to push bikes

HOW DO YOU EXPECT INDIA TO CUT ITS EMISSIONS BASED ON POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE, THEY WOULD ALL STARVE.

daedong said:

HOW DO YOU EXPECT INDIA TO CUT ITS EMISSIONS BASED ON POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE, THEY WOULD ALL STARVE.

Click to expand...

Did you not read this and why are you yelling? You telling me that just because India is low on emissions that they don't have to try and help out?? You telling me they can't do better? Is this not a world problem? Should not everyone try to work together and accomplish a task as a team?

Vin,

I somewhat agree with you but not totally. Even though their emissions are lower it does not mean that they can't get on the band wagon with the rest of world and help out. This is a case where every bit helps and if they are not willing help the world as a whole then that is wrong also.


murph

Click to expand...

Murph, nobody said that India should base its emissions on population per square mile but rather on population alone. Realize that energy use is not based on the size of the nation but rather on the population of the nation because PEOPLE use energy, create pollution, abuse the environment, produce goods, etc. The size of the land mass is not relevant. A large population can exist in a small (geographic) country, a large population can exist in a large (geographic) country.

In the case of India they have a fairly large geographic nation, but they have a HUGE population and their nations is reasonably underdeveloped. As they develop their nation they are polluting more and more. Having friend there, who travel back and forth from here to there, they say the nation is filthy and getting worse as the population modernizes. To suggest that developed nations should be hobbled by a 'global' agreement and not also hobble a nation like India with very lax standards and very high levels of all sorts of pollutants is insane since it is getting worse there by the day and their pollution is growing almost exponentially.

If they will not clean up their act, even a little bit, then we should not be placed at a severe economic disadvantage to the extent that our businesses are driven offshore just to survive.

India and China both put some of the nastiest pollutants you can imagine in the atmosphere. They have a low regard for human life in the workplace. The slums of India have folks "recycling" computers by burning them in open fires and panning the precious metals to make a living. China is doing the same thing.
If you compare overall pollution period without population or land area denominators the US is way ahead in cleaning the environment.

daedong said:

Based on this "logic" Australia may as well just burn as much coal as possible (about 800 years worth) and save costs of R&D and all other more expensive resources.

Click to expand...

That is great logic. Why spend money to avoid a made up problem? To line Mr Gore's pockets?

Time for a boat ride........

thcri said:

Vin,

I somewhat agree with you but not totally. Even though their emissions are lower it does not mean that they can't get on the band wagon with the rest of world and help out. This is a case where every bit helps and if they are not willing help the world as a whole then that is wrong also.


murph

Click to expand...

Murph I do apologize for yelling, what would I have done if I had been drinking?
Please could you explain to me how you would expect a relatively undeveloped country like India to reduce emissions and progress to a standard of living anywhere near yours or mine, when their emissions are at this point in time around 1/20th of that of Australia's or America's per capita?

I wouldn't sign it either -- climate change has to do with the SUN, not anything humans are doing.

Gatorboy said:

I wouldn't sign it either -- climate change has to do with the SUN, not anything humans are doing.

Click to expand...

Wait a minute, are you saying the Sun, tilt and rotation of the Earth cause
the change in our seasons? Does the scientific community know about this?
The important question is, can Owlgore still make money off the dumbmasses
using this theory?

daedong said:

Murph I do apologize for yelling, what would I have done if I had been drinking?
Please could you explain to me how you would expect a relatively undeveloped country like India to reduce emissions and progress to a standard of living anywhere near yours or mine, when their emissions are at this point in time around 1/20th of that of Australia's or America's per capita?

Click to expand...

I am not expecting them to. I only ask that they get in the huddle with the rest of the world. They just might learn something. There may be inexpensive ways to just cut 1%. But to say we can't help because we are underdeveloped is irresponsible.

I love how since the world has been cooling over the past several years, they changed the term "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"

Gatorboy said:

I love how since the world has been cooling over the past several years, they changed the term "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"

Click to expand...

You're not supposed to look at the man behind the curtain.