Here's a revealing comment:  "Mrs Clinton, on a five-day visit to the country, said that low-carbon emissions would not jeopardise Indias high economic growth rates and its goal of lifting millions of people out of poverty."  That is clearly utter bullshit, and India obviously knows it.  Given the existing levels of technology, the elitist, moonbat feelgood policies would set their progress back by decades.  But then again, "lifting millions of people out of poverty" is hardly a worthwhile effort compared to Al Gore's net income, for example.  Elitist bastards can't even keep their *own* pages in order.

gus.

 

India rebuffs US carbon demands

By James Lamont in New Delhi, James Fontanella-Khan in Mumbai and Daniel Dombey in Washington

Published: July 19 2009 19:27 | Last updated: July 19 2009 19:27

India on Sunday night rebuffed an appeal by Hillary Clinton, US secretary of state, to embrace a low-carbon future in which the two countries would work together to devise new ways of consuming and producing energy.

Mrs Clinton, on a five-day visit to the country, said that low-carbon emissions would not jeopardise Indias high economic growth rates and its goal of lifting millions of people out of poverty. She offered a technological partnership to secure the fast growing nations energy supplies and help boost the livelihoods of its farmers.

There is simply no case for the pressure that we, who have been among the lowest emissions per capita, face to actually reduce emissions, Jairam Ramesh, Indias environment minister told Mrs Clinton. And as if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours.

In spite of the two countries battles in global trade talks and fears of Indias slipping down the USs priority list, Mrs Clinton vowed that Washington would not do anything to stand in the way of the worlds largest democracys economic progress.

Speaking in Delhi on Sunday, Mrs Clinton said: We believe that economic progress in India is in everyones interest and not just in the interest of Indians.

There is a way to eradicate poverty and develop sustainably that will lower significantly the carbon footprint of the energy that is produced and consumed to fuel that growth.

Her comments come as global leaders try to agree a course of action to combat climate change and to break a deadlock over the Doha round of trade talks at the World Trade Organisation. New Delhi has sided with Beijing to oppose binding caps on its carbon emissions. They argue that developed nations should take responsibility for global warming. India has also clashed with the US over the terms of the global trade deal. The Indian government welcomed the USs partnership but refused to agree to emissions caps.

Mrs Clinton is the most senior official of President Barack Obamas administration to visit India since his election at the end of last year. The Indian government had close ties to the Republican administration of former president George W. Bush. Mr Bush helped end decades of isolation for Indias nuclear programme by striking a civil nuclear agreement between the two countries.

Some Indian officials express anxieties that a Democrat administration may turn to more protectionist measures in an economic downturn and also revisit earlier attempts during the presidency of Bill Clinton to find a settlement for Kashmir, disputed territory between India and Pakistan.

Mrs Clinton, who meets prime minister Manmohan Singh on Monday, has done her best to reflect a fast-improving relationship that promises to yield co-operation in defence, nuclear power and regional relations.

In a symbolic act of solidarity, she began her visit in Mumbai, staying at the Taj Hotel, one of the targets of the devastating terror attacks on Indias financial capital last November.

The visit takes place amid a pervasive sense of unease in India that the Obama administration is less enthusiastic about the bilateral relationship than its predecessor, said Seema Desai, an analyst at the Eurasia Group.

There have been nagging concerns in India that the non-proliferation focus of the Obama administration as well as its desire for an intensified dialogue with China has reduced India's importance and leverage with the US.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/741cc2f0-748f-11de-8ad5-00144feabdc0.html

 

 

 

 

By no means is it "clearly utter bullshit." India's current per-capita carbon footprint is quite low and the best way forward would be to leapfrog the heavy dependence on fossil fuels going direct to solar wind and nuclear as primary sources. That saves them the cost of dismantling and replacing fossil-fuel based infrastucture a couple of decades down the line.

By no means is it "clearly utter bullshit." India's current per-capita carbon footprint is quite low and the best way forward would be to leapfrog the heavy dependence on fossil fuels going direct to solar wind and nuclear as primary sources. That saves them the cost of dismantling and replacing fossil-fuel based infrastucture a couple of decades down the line.

  Cart before the horse.  The maximum yield for start-up energy per dollar/hour construction costs is clearly established fossil-fuel technology.  They will subsequently reach their goals sooner, and at less cost.  So it will be from a position of much greater growth and prosperity that they will address any changes in a few decades.

gus.