Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.reuters.com/article/hotStocksNews/idUSDEB00309720091203

India will not sign binding emission cuts-minister
More Business & Investing News... NEW DELHI, Dec 3 (Reuters) - India will not accept a legally binding emission cut nor a peak year of carbon emissions at the global climate talks in Copenhagen, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said on Thursday.

"There is no question of India accepting a legally binding emission reduction cut," he told parliament, laying out India's negotiating position ahead of the December talks.

India would however accept international verification of reductions if supported by financing and technology transfers.

(Reporting by Krittivas Mukherjee: Editing by Jeremy Laurence)

So they are not willing to cripple there economy over some hypothosis that may or may not be fact? Shocking. I guess the West are the only ones dumb enough to stick our heads in a noose and the East will again kick the chair from under us. Good on them though.

They've said as much to Hillary's face on her last visit. And we know how China feels about the environment. Until those two get on board, and Brazil stops giving the rainforests a Brazilian, nothing the rest of the world does will matter much.

Tyyr wrote:Nothing Man does will matter much.

There... fixed it for you.

Tyyr wrote:They've said as much to Hillary's face on her last visit. And we know how China feels about the environment. Until those two get on board, and Brazil stops giving the rainforests a Brazilian, nothing the rest of the world does will matter much.

China and India can't afford to embark on our little campaign. If they're worried about then environment, they're going to be worried about the poisons in the air and water that are killing and sickening thousands, not polar bears falling off blocks of ice.

Ahtman wrote:

Tyyr wrote:They've said as much to Hillary's face on her last visit. And we know how China feels about the environment. Until those two get on board, and Brazil stops giving the rainforests a Brazilian, nothing the rest of the world does will matter much.

mstersmith wrote:So they are not willing to cripple there economy over some hypothosis that may or may not be fact?

-OR- they are not willing to concede as fact something that would make them less competitive.

I think India and China basically think "you Americans and Europeans screwed over the environment and look what it got you! we're not giving up our chance at that same kind of wealth and power."

the Global Warming is a hoax made by satan

Sitting on the dry lake bed in Udaipur, India, it becomes pretty obvious that Indians just don't get the idea of environmentalism. Here was one of the most beautiful locations in the world, a glorious palace in the middle of one of the great lakes (it was the setting for the opening scenes of Octopussy), but due to excessive water use the water table had been so drowned the river only filled during the heaviest of monsoons. Despite losing such a wonderful landmark, there has been no change in water usage policies in India.

India is a great place, but it is a very good thing that most of us have a better understanding of conservation than they do.

sebster wrote:Sitting on the dry lake bed in Udaipur, India, it becomes pretty obvious that Indians just don't get the idea of environmentalism. Here was one of the most beautiful locations in the world, a glorious palace in the middle of one of the great lakes (it was the setting for the opening scenes of Octopussy), but due to excessive water use the water table had been so drowned the river only filled during the heaviest of monsoons. Despite losing such a wonderful landmark, there has been no change in water usage policies in India.

India is a great place, but it is a very good thing that most of us have a better understanding of conservation than they do.

Thats utter BS. India is not going along with this because they have their priorities in order. Harping about some nebulous greenhouse issue is suicide when your country is trying to figure out that whole "keep everyone from starving and living in abject poverty at a level that would make a billygoat puke" thing. Worrying about the environment is a luxury of the rich.

Frazzled wrote:

sebster wrote:Sitting on the dry lake bed in Udaipur, India, it becomes pretty obvious that Indians just don't get the idea of environmentalism. Here was one of the most beautiful locations in the world, a glorious palace in the middle of one of the great lakes (it was the setting for the opening scenes of Octopussy), but due to excessive water use the water table had been so drowned the river only filled during the heaviest of monsoons. Despite losing such a wonderful landmark, there has been no change in water usage policies in India.

India is a great place, but it is a very good thing that most of us have a better understanding of conservation than they do.

Thats utter BS. India is not going along with this because they have their priorities in order. Harping about some nebulous greenhouse issue is suicide when your country is trying to figure out that whole "keep everyone from starving and living in abject poverty at a level that would make a billygoat puke" thing. Worrying about the environment is a luxury of the rich.

QFT , its just politics atm

Frazzled wrote:Thats utter BS. India is not going along with this because they have their priorities in order. Harping about some nebulous greenhouse issue is suicide when your country is trying to figure out that whole "keep everyone from starving and living in abject poverty at a level that would make a billygoat puke" thing. Worrying about the environment is a luxury of the rich.

Actually, not at all. I feel like I'm pointing out what should be obvious but destroying the resources upon which human life is dependent is not conducive to even subsistent levels of human life much less the development of the quality of that life. Setting aside the idea of global warming, what sense does the land and water use of modern India really make if you want a sustainable population? There are at the systemic level moral and practical problems with the northern European economic system we call capitalism. It, and perhaps especially the attitude toward resources implicit it to it, is not the universal panacea we imagined it to be. Countries like India and China are characterized by conditions that exaggerate those systemic problems by catastrophic magnitudes over comparatively brief periods of time. In reality, the poor are far, far more vulnerable to ecological disasters than the rich. It is not the luxury of the rich to worry about the environment--it's actually our responsibility. But don't take my word for it. Go read Caritas in veritate.

Manchu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats utter BS. India is not going along with this because they have their priorities in order. Harping about some nebulous greenhouse issue is suicide when your country is trying to figure out that whole "keep everyone from starving and living in abject poverty at a level that would make a billygoat puke" thing. Worrying about the environment is a luxury of the rich.

Actually, not at all. I feel like I'm pointing out what should be obvious but destroying the resources upon which human life is dependent is not conducive to even subsistent levels of human life much less the development of the quality of that life. Setting aside the idea of global warming, what sense does the land and water use of modern India really make if you want a sustainable population? There are at the systemic level moral and practical problems with the northern European economic system we call capitalism. It, and perhaps especially the attitude toward resources implicit it to it, is not the universal panacea we imagined it to be. Countries like India and China are characterized by conditions that exaggerate those systemic problems by catastrophic magnitudes over comparatively brief periods of time. In reality, the poor are far, far more vulnerable to ecological disasters than the rich. It is not the luxury of the rich to worry about the environment--it's actually our responsibility. But don't take my word for it. Go read Caritas in veritate.

Again, respectfully, none of that matters to a hard charging developing country.
Both India and China have to maintain near double digit growth just to make sure their political systems are not overthrown (China especially). What matters to them is growth: jobs, economic power, real infrastructure improvement. You can’t talk about sustainability to a country who’s population has blasted through a billion people and not stopping-they will just laugh at you.

Absent putting in nuke reactors instead of coal burners these countries, if interested in the environment are interested in “hard” environmental damage and cleanup. The sort of things mentioned by Sebbie actually-good old fashioned pollution and smog. Something nebulous like greenhouse gas is just not on their radar. Frankly, it shouldn’t be.

I’ll restate, climate change is an issue for the rich and employed. Unemployed don’t care (witness cap n tax effectively dying in the Senate) and that’s issue #1125 on a poor nation’s priority (unless it can get money or laws that force jobs and employment in their direction of course).



Automatically Appended Next Post:
As a final note and OT I'm waiting for the snow to start falling here. I've never, ever, in my thousands of years on this world, seen the prospect of snow during the day in Houston. Its cosmically freaky but will be way cool!

What will all the alligators do?

I understand what you mean about a country with a billion people trying to make sense out of a concept like sustainability. I think we actually agree here. Climate change is probably not their actual concern (this statement has nothing to do with whether it should be or not, however) but they must shape up on their environmentalism as Sebster noted. It simply cannot be ignored without becoming crippling.

Also, it snowed in Corpus Christi about four or five years back. Isn't that just two hours or so from Houston?

Manchu wrote:I understand what you mean about a country with a billion people trying to make sense out of a concept like sustainability. I think we actually agree here. Climate change is probably not their actual concern (this statement has nothing to do with whether it should be or not, however) but they must shape up on their environmentalism as Sebster noted. It simply cannot be ignored without becoming crippling.

Also, it snowed in Corpus Christi about four or five years back. Isn't that just two hours or so from Houston?

Environmental agreed. They are less concerned about it though for similar reasons, but that is more of a factor. On the positive its much easier to address and has real benefit.

Corpus is a couple of hours west and slightly south. Yea it just never snows here during the day. ok reality it never snows here.

Manchu wrote:Actually, not at all. I feel like I'm pointing out what should be obvious but destroying the resources upon which human life is dependent is not conducive to even subsistent levels of human life much less the development of the quality of that life. Setting aside the idea of global warming, what sense does the land and water use of modern India really make if you want a sustainable population?

At the moment they don't care about a sustainable population. They're just worried about keeping the population they have alive. Regards of the social issues that have driven India's population up to the levels it has the need these levels of consumption just to keep their country alive. The only way for India's population to be "sustainable" right now is for about half of it to die. Obviously the Indian government doesn't see this as a viable option. So they're trying to develop as rapidly as they can in the hopes that they'll gain the wealth and advancement needed so they can get somewhere sustainable.

Frazzled wrote:Again, respectfully, none of that matters to a hard charging developing country.
Both India and China have to maintain near double digit growth just to make sure their political systems are not overthrown (China especially). What matters to them is growth: jobs, economic power, real infrastructure improvement. You can’t talk about sustainability to a country who’s population has blasted through a billion people and not stopping-they will just laugh at you.

Which is worth pointing out. To a very large degree the perception is that the developed countries of the world all went through this time in their country's lives. Only now we're turning around and telling everyone else "no, you can't do that." It's percieved in one of two ways, either the developed countries are trying to hold them back, fearful of competition; or as a bunch of have's who now have the time and money to get their panties in a wad over something that doesn't matter all that much and are so disconnected from reality that we'd rather watch a bunch of brown people starve to death or die of disease than harm an otter.

I mean honestly, do you expect a developing country to build one powerplant with all the pollution controls so that it can be green when they can build two without them? Keep in mind these are people living in shanties, slums, etc. who have never had power. Of course not, they build the two and they'll worry about the nicities later.

Frazzled wrote:I’ll restate, climate change is an issue for the rich and employed. Unemployed don’t care (witness cap n tax effectively dying in the Senate) and that’s issue #1125 on a poor nation’s priority (unless it can get money or laws that force jobs and employment in their direction of course).

This is the truth. When you have no money, no job, you're hungry, and your kids are sick do you really give a crap about pollution? No and frankly you'd have to be an idiot if you did. Your first priority is a job and taking care of your family. Yes, the enviornment is important but you've gotta be alive to appreciate it first.

Manchu wrote:I understand what you mean about a country with a billion people trying to make sense out of a concept like sustainability. I think we actually agree here. Climate change is probably not their actual concern (this statement has nothing to do with whether it should be or not, however) but they must shape up on their environmentalism as Sebster noted. It simply cannot be ignored without becoming crippling.

You can preach at them about needing to shape up their environmentalism all you want, it's simply not going to happen. Period. They've got more pressing concerns to deal with and they're just going to laugh at you.

Ugh. Facepalm city.

Tyyr wrote:So they're trying to develop as rapidly as they can in the hopes that they'll gain the wealth and advancement needed so they can get somewhere sustainable.

The result of this sort of development is neglecting the poor and leaving them to die. I don't think the concern is really about saving people at all. I think it's about making money quickly in (what they perceive to be) the Western style.

Tyyr wrote: When you have no money, no job, you're hungry, and your kids are sick do you really give a crap about pollution? No and frankly you'd have to be an idiot if you did. Your first priority is a job and taking care of your family. Yes, the enviornment is important but you've gotta be alive to appreciate it first.

A national government is not actually a family. When the government worries about whether or not people will be able to eat it MUST consider environmental issues.

Tyyr wrote:You can preach at them about needing to shape up their environmentalism all you want, it's simply not going to happen. Period. They've got more pressing concerns to deal with and they're just going to laugh at you.

Then they will be laughing all the way to the mass graves that result from famine.

Manchu wrote:Ugh. Facepalm city.

If you're going to invoke facepalm then you need a cool pic to do so...

The result of this sort of development is neglecting the poor and leaving them to die. I don't think the concern is really about saving people at all. I think it's about making money quickly in (what they perceive to be) the Western style.

China has privately stated it needs 8% growth to keep the populace in the hinterlands from rebelling. Its about saving themselves.

A national government is not actually a family. When the government worries about whether or not people will be able to eat it MUST consider environmental issues.

Respectfully, thats bulls t. They have to consider economic issues and secondarily pollution-real pollution not cowfarts.

Then they will be laughing all the way to the mass graves that result from famine.

Money =s food. Reducing the ability to generate power so Al Gore can make money is not going to help famine. The two are linked in no way.

Frazzled wrote: If you're going to invoke facepalm then you need a cool pic to do so...

Did not even merit it.

China has privately stated it needs 8% growth to keep the populace in the hinterlands from rebelling. Its about saving themselves.

So it's about the survivability of the regime rather than the people? Again, we agree.

They have to consider economic issues and secondarily pollution-real pollution not cowfarts.

Pollution--and here I remind you we have already agreed to talk about "real" pollution (i.e., what you are willing to recognize as real) rather than greenhouse gases--is an economic issue. The destruction of resources, whether it be through mismanagement or wasting or tainting or abusing or whatever, destroys economic opportunity.

Money =s food.

No it doesn't. How much food can money buy when there is no food? That just happened a couple years back in India.

Reducing the ability to generate power so Al Gore can make money is not going to help famine. The two are linked in no way.

At this point, you are off in Frazzled-land (say hi to Bill O'Reilly for me) and no longer conversing with me.

Manchu wrote:The result of this sort of development is neglecting the poor and leaving them to die. I don't think the concern is really about saving people at all. I think it's about making money quickly in (what they perceive to be) the Western style.

The goal of their developement appears to be to bring their entire country up to first world status. Does that result in making money? Sure, but when you start out as a third world country there's no where to go but up. They can't become a first world country by going green. It's too expensive and requires too many skills that they don't have. So they're doing what the US and every other developed country in the world has done. Work with what they've got, improve it, and move on to the next step. Instead of sitting on our rears, waggling our fingers at them we'd be better off looking for ways to help them develop as quickly as we can so they reach a point they can start worrying about the enviornment.

Are some of them making money? Sure, but any time a society advances some move along quicker than others. Some will get out and front and benefit big time and others will lag. They eventually catch up however. But you cannot expect them to voluntarily slow their development because in the end holding back those who advance the society the farthest the fastest doesn't benefit those who lag.

Think about it. If they've got the money to build two powerplants with no pollution controls or one with them what do they do? They build two. It's more jobs, more people with electricity, more people benefit. The country is benefited more by two powerplants than one. If you build just one the divide you worry about just gets worse as power is more expensive and is confined more to those with money. The rate powerplants get built slows as well meaning it will be far longer before the rest of the country benefits from electricity.

Manchu wrote:A national government is not actually a family. When the government worries about whether or not people will be able to eat it MUST consider environmental issues.

I am aware the government isn't a family. However the families elect the people in the government so you can't ignore their concerns. Try to tell a family that they're going to go without power, or running water, or a hospital, while they're hungry and sick because you need to build enviornmentally sound powerplants and other facilities and see if you can get elected. You can't. So what are they doing? Developing as quickly as they can and we should be encouraging and helping. Once they've reached a first world status and once they have the luxury of worrying about the enviornment they will. Right now there's no way they're going to worry about enviornmental issues.

Manchu wrote:Then they will be laughing all the way to the mass graves that result from famine.

A dire prediction, and yet they're doing what every other developed country in the world has done. Good luck making that case.

Money =s food.

No it doesn't. How much food can money buy when there is no food? That just happened a couple years back in India.

Thats because they were poor. Japan doesn't produce enough food to feed its population. It buys it/fishes for the rest. Same for Russia.

Frazzled wrote:Thats utter BS. India is not going along with this because they have their priorities in order. Harping about some nebulous greenhouse issue is suicide when your country is trying to figure out that whole "keep everyone from starving and living in abject poverty at a level that would make a billygoat puke" thing. Worrying about the environment is a luxury of the rich.

No, Fraz, that's ideology speaking without any interest in understanding India. India is currently the second largest producer of food in the world, and a net exporter. When they placed a temporary ban on rice exports when food prices were inflating heavily a few years ago it was a significant hit on the world economy. Like most places with starving people, the issue is one of distribution, not production.

Not that Indian agriculture would be impacted by, as any proposed emissions cap on agriculture would hit cattle primarily - and there's no beef industry in India.

You're also making a big mistake in assuming India has that much concern for the people that are starving. The middle classes of India are building a very materialistic, aspirational society, and it is that middle class that defines Indian politics. They enjoy roughly similar lives to us, are well fed and just as capable of giving concern to the environment, but that isn't an issue compared to economic growth and more jobs.

Meanwhile, my point was about Udaipur lake and the draining of the water basin - which is harming agriculture and tourism - core elements of the Indian economy. But unfortunately right now the Indians are fixated with growth and assuming a primary position of power in the economy, and that means . Even as environmental damage and it's impact on the economy occurs, the will to do things smarter doesn't emerge.

So, umm, yeah, pretty much everything you said was wrong. Perhaps in future you could form your answers around an actual knowledge of a country and not just make blind assumptions based on your politics.

We'll just have to agree to disagree Sebster.

Translation I'm right and you're wrong nah nah nah nah!

Frazzled wrote:The sort of things mentioned by Sebbie actually-good old fashioned pollution and smog. Something nebulous like greenhouse gas is just not on their radar. Frankly, it shouldn’t be.

Actually, I mentioned the lowering of the water table, so that a great lake is now completely dry. This means less tourists dollars and no fishing, which means a lot of poor people don't have any means of supporting themselves. Meanwhile, the middle class Indians keep expanding industry in the south and go to Darjeeling for holiday instead.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:The sort of things mentioned by Sebbie actually-good old fashioned pollution and smog. Something nebulous like greenhouse gas is just not on their radar. Frankly, it shouldn’t be.

Actually, I mentioned the lowering of the water table, so that a great lake is now completely dry. This means less tourists dollars and no fishing, which means a lot of poor people don't have any means of supporting themselves. Meanwhile, the middle class Indians keep expanding industry in the south and go to Darjeeling for holiday instead.

Yea but do they take the Darjeeling Ltd?

Frazzled wrote:

That movie kicks so much ass. Screw this, I'm going to go watch it right now.

The honor, is to serve.

Manchu wrote:

mstersmith wrote:So they are not willing to cripple there economy over some hypothosis that may or may not be fact?

-OR- they are not willing to concede as fact something that would make them less competitive.

I think India and China basically think "you Americans and Europeans screwed over the environment and look what it got you! we're not giving up our chance at that same kind of wealth and power."

I am on the fence wether the Industrial Revolution really had any Global impact. We mostly gak in our own yard and paid a price for it. We as a Nation are more informed of the enviromental impact of many industrial waste biproducts. We have made whole industrys off of it. This Copenhagen confrence is a sham and India and China know it. We are doing nothing more than crippling ourselves. It really makes no sense to me. Conservation is one thing but these nuts want outright preservation of all resorces regardless of the impact on our economy. Green jobs will not save squat if there is no need for them. TBH build one new nuclear power plan on US soil and then I will believe we are moving in the right direction.

3rd world mentalities never understand the environment.

I was on a Caribbean island and people would just throw there rubbish into the beautiful ocean. Western expats were trying to educate them, but they don't seem to get it..


Also if you asked people whats more important a clean future for the children or the grand children or an easy life now. People want both but will settle with denial and an easy life now.

Me being completely selfish would just take easy life now.