India's PM: "Climate change won't stop progress"

[Darth Wong]

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/10/2 ... ge022.html

Climate change won't stop progress: India's PM
Last Updated: Thursday, October 22, 2009 | 12:07 PM ET
The Associated Press

The world's poor nations will not sacrifice their development in negotiations for a new climate change deal, says Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

The issue of how to share the burden of fighting global warming has divided the developing and industrialized worlds as they prepare to negotiate a replacement to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol at a December summit in Copenhagen.

"Developing countries cannot and will not compromise on development," Singh told an international conference on technology and climate change in New Delhi on Thursday.

However, even poorer countries need to "do our bit to keep our emissions footprint within levels that are sustainable and equitable," he said.

Developing countries argue that the industrial world produced most of the heat-trapping greenhouse gases and should bear the costs of fixing the problem.

Wealthy nations say all countries — including growing polluters India and China — have to agree to broad cuts in emissions.

India and China agreed Wednesday to stand together on climate change issues at the Copenhagen meeting. The two nations agreed to work on slowing the growth of greenhouse gas emissions, but resisted making those limits binding and subject to international monitoring.

Developing countries want financial aid for their climate change efforts, and Singh said wealthy nations have an obligation to ensure they get access to new, clean technology that will cut emissions and increase energy efficiency.

I can imagine how the right-wingers here in Canada and the US will react to this: "If India won't lower their emissions, why should we?"

[CJvR]

Perhaps the "global" part of "global warming" have escaped him?

Ah well once the Ganges dries up he will see the error...

[Patrick Degan]

Perhaps the "global" part of "global warming" have escaped him?

Ah well once the Ganges dries up he will see the error...

I doubt this fuckwit would see it even after Bangladesh drowns.

[Big Orange]

But was it not the West's lust for cheap labour, materials and products that led to the excessive, almost out of control industrialization of India and China to begin with? Those poor deformed babies did not come from nowhere.

[Gil Hamilton]

I doubt this fuckwit would see it even after Bangladesh drowns.

He won't have to wait too long, Bangladesh is half way disintegrated already.

[ray245]

But was it not the West's lust for cheap labour, materials and products that led to the excessive, almost out of control industrialization of India and China to begin with? Those poor deformed babies did not come from nowhere.

Define out of control for me please. I thought that Stas Bush has pointed out to us that industrialisation in the early stage is always energy intensive as well as causing a high level of pollution?

Why shouldn't India and China move faster in regards to industrialisation and get out of the inital stage?

[Samuel]

But was it not the West's lust for cheap labour, materials and products that led to the excessive, almost out of control industrialization of India and China to begin with? Those poor deformed babies did not come from nowhere.

I'm pretty sure both India and China's governments want to industrialize so blaming the change on us is sort of bullshit. As for the environmental fuckups, they have generally been in a different category than "destroy Bangladesh".

[hongi]

Short-sighted fool. Looks like the developing countries are following in exactly the same paths as the developed world.

[Ford Prefect]

Does that even remotely surprise you? In fact, does it surprise anyone that developing nations are so difficult to get on board when it comes to cutting emissions? A significant number of Australians are rabidly opposed to having to cut emissions, and Australia isn't a nation in the process of industrialisation with a billion mouths to feed. Even though I do agree that this is a short-sighted position to hold, at least try to keep in mind that what works for a first world nation doesn't necessarily work for a third world nation.

[AniThyng]

Short-sighted fool. Looks like the developing countries are following in exactly the same paths as the developed world.

Well, not exactly. We're still really poor in the "civil liberties" and "democracy" department

You will agree of course that the developed world is ultimately better off though? There is simply no way the developing world will allow itself to be lectured by rich countries telling them "do as I say, not as I did".

[His Divine Shadow]

Well progress will stop, especially for countries like India, nomatter what they do.

[Junghalli]

Does that even remotely surprise you? In fact, does it surprise anyone that developing nations are so difficult to get on board when it comes to cutting emissions? A significant number of Australians are rabidly opposed to having to cut emissions, and Australia isn't a nation in the process of industrialisation with a billion mouths to feed. Even though I do agree that this is a short-sighted position to hold, at least try to keep in mind that what works for a first world nation doesn't necessarily work for a third world nation.

No, it doesn't surprise me at all. I won't exactly say I agree with his position (it's a complex issue which I will not venture an opinion on based on 30 seconds of thought), but in a way I can sort of empathize with it. From his perspective, the developed nations:

1) Created their wealth by enthusiastically investing in all sorts of polluting industries.
2) Turn around to you, a less developed nation playing catch-up, and say you should make the job harder for yourself by reserving precious scarce resources to reduce environmental damage; something they never bothered to do themselves. By the way, they often continue to consume vast resources and create vast pollution to sustain their luxurious living standards even while they're saying this.

I'd be tempted to say "fuck off" too.

[ray245]

Well progress will stop, especially for countries like India, nomatter what they do.

Why is that the case?

[Thanas]

The problem is that if the global climate continues to change, it won't be the first world that will suffer the most.

Quite frankly, we can afford to relocate and rebuilt entire towns stone by stone if we had to and we are already building extensive flood protection systems.

India and china do not have that luxury.

[AniThyng]

In any case, It's not as if the Prime Minister said they will pollute come hell or high water

However, even poorer countries need to "do our bit to keep our emissions footprint within levels that are sustainable and equitable," he said.

Developing countries want financial aid for their climate change efforts, and Singh said wealthy nations have an obligation to ensure they get access to new, clean technology that will cut emissions and increase energy efficiency.

These aren't particularly unreasonable terms.

Also, regarding perspective: I'm not inclined to be too harsh on my former British colonial masters, they left Malaysia and legacy of good roads, education and a functioning civil service, but they ALSO exploited the mineral wealth of the country for the Empire, and this was within living memory (of my grandparents), so from our perspective, not only did the 1st world pollute themselves to wealth, they plundered their way to it too. (let's not kid ourselves, the main reason the British happened to do the former is because they wanted the latter.)

[His Divine Shadow]

Well progress will stop, especially for countries like India, nomatter what they do.

Why is that the case?

In broad terms an eco collapse leading to mass starvation etc. And climate change isn't even what I was thinking about. I'm thinking pollution, soil erosion, acquifier depletion, deforestation, resource depletion as more immediate problems. Then you also got the longterm and pretty much unstoppable problem of climate change.

The first world is sparsely populated and even with climate change and all that other shit I just counted up we could still feed ourselves and maintain a pretty good technological level of society. The third world though, there are just too many people crowding down there for ever sparser resources. The green revolution bought a little time, for the problem to get worse.

I just finished Jared Diamonds collapse so I am a bit gloomy right now.

[ray245]

Well progress will stop, especially for countries like India, nomatter what they do.

Why is that the case?

In broad terms an eco collapse leading to mass starvation etc. And climate change isn't even what I was thinking about. I'm thinking pollution, soil erosion, acquifier depletion, deforestation, resource depletion as more immediate problems. Then you also got the longterm and pretty much unstoppable problem of climate change.

The first world is sparsely populated and even with climate change and all that other shit I just counted up we could still feed ourselves and maintain a pretty good technological level of society. The third world though, there are just too many people crowding down there for ever sparser resources. The green revolution bought a little time, for the problem to get worse.

I just finished Jared Diamonds collapse so I am a bit gloomy right now.

Then again, given the fact that those nations would be screwed even worse if they are still a developing nation when shit hits the fan, shouldn't they attempt to industrialise at a faster pace?

Additionally, I thought that a nation that has sucessfully indutrialise usually have a decline in birth rates.

[His Divine Shadow]

Their industrialization will just increase pollution and resource consumption per capita which will quicken resource depletion. Even though industrialized countries have smaller birth rates it wouldn't really matter when these developing countries are massively overpopulated right this moment.

Even if India today managed through a miracle to reduce the birthrate to western levels they still have far far too many people alive right now, most of them are young as well and can be expected to live on for another 60-70 years. Most of the enviromental problems are expected to become severe within less than 50 years.

[Kane Starkiller]

India has 800 people per km2 of arable land compared to: UK 1080/km2, Germany 700/km2, Netherlands 1800/km2, Japan 2900/km2, China 930/km2.
While it's population is massive they're not exactly falling over each other as most people imagine.

[Big Orange]

I'm pretty sure both India and China's governments want to industrialize so blaming the change on us is sort of bullshit. As for the environmental fuckups, they have generally been in a different category than "destroy Bangladesh".

I'm not exonorating the politicians and businessmen running the highly pollutive industries in Asia, but we've still offloaded much of our manufacturing there and it was a Union Carbide facility that went up in Bhopal.

[His Divine Shadow]

India has 800 people per km2 of arable land compared to: UK 1080/km2, Germany 700/km2, Netherlands 1800/km2, Japan 2900/km2, China 930/km2.
While it's population is massive they're not exactly falling over each other as most people imagine.

However I do not think any of these countries are self-sufficient foodwise and rely on other countries for food. If that was to stop then british dishes such as haggis would be supplemented with new ones such as chav-soup and ned bread.

I believe India is now also having to import more food once again and are no longer self-sufficient as they where after the green revolution.

[Ryan Thunder]

I can imagine how the right-wingers here in Canada and the US will react to this: "If India won't lower their emissions, why should we?"

I'm just afraid that it'll be futile if they're still industrializing.

That's not to say that we shouldn't try, of course.

[mr friendly guy]

Sell some of our greener technologies to them. I have heard talk that Australia is optimistic to selling so called clean coal technology to China, while China already have some clean coal reactors derived from US technologies. We could stand to make a profit here.

Also as these countries industrialise, they will need more demand for power, and it looks like the most practical way of generating that is nuclear, which is cleaner than coal. So in the long term these countries may become greener any way. The question is, will they do it soon enough, and one of the ways of help that along is to convince them they need our greener technologies.

[cosmicalstorm]

Wont Bangladesh be one of the first places that people have to flee once the water starts rising? India's going to be hit hard by those people. Oh well, going to be interesting to grow old and see how this unfolds.

[Simon_Jester]

Short-sighted fool. Looks like the developing countries are following in exactly the same paths as the developed world.

Well, not exactly. We're still really poor in the "civil liberties" and "democracy" department

You will agree of course that the developed world is ultimately better off though? There is simply no way the developing world will allow itself to be lectured by rich countries telling them "do as I say, not as I did".

The problem is that "do as I say, not as I did" is only half the picture. The other half is "The boat we're all in is sinking, we screwed up, if you screw up the same way we did we are ALL in trouble including you."

And while it's all very well to take the sociomoral high ground and say "I will not submit to your hypocritical demands!"... that doesn't stop the boat from sinking.