What is Digg?76 Comments
- BalancingAct, on 09/06/2009, -12/+50Because it's not practical for them. They would cripple their economy if they did. I'm all in favour of clean energy where it's practical, but in the case of India, China, and many other developing countries there is no point in them needlessly crippling their economy in order to move towards clean energy based purely on dogmatic reasons.
- biofriendlyblog, on 09/06/2009, -8/+43You'd think they'd want to cut down emissions just to make a cleaner country....regardless of whether their per capita emissions are lower or not.
- Pinkertinkle, on 09/07/2009, -5/+36India's population growth is out of control.
- inactive, on 09/06/2009, -4/+31Looking at it from that perspective, then there is a really good argument in favor of green economy - to force developing nations' economies from growing too fast and overheating. Plus it would force them to play catch up to us in America, who would already be far ahead of them in that department.
- gaymathman, on 09/07/2009, -1/+23Also, massive amounts of Indians do no have electricity in their homes. It is insanely selfish to ask people to live without the modern conveniences we've taken for granted for almost a century.
- dstz, on 09/07/2009, -4/+22Post colonialism is really the keyword here. We have the right to pollute, will say how much we "care and will change that" (like everyone we won't until technology makes it convenient and productive) but THEY should come clean right now despite polluting less than us. It's game theory, it's evolution, it's that human never think they are as bad as their neighbors, and whoever has the power uses it regardless of morale.
- bdbr, on 09/07/2009, -1/+16Reducing CO2 emissions doesn't give them a "cleaner country". Maybe reducing some of the other pollutants that sometimes come with C02 (e.g. sulfur dioxide) does, but just cutting back CO2 doesn't really have an immediate positive local impact.
- gaymathman, on 09/07/2009, -5/+18India has about 1/18th the co2 emissions per capita of the us, and about 1/7th the co2 per capita of Europe. I think that ragging on the US or Qatar is far more appropriate than arguing that India shouldn't develop its economy.
- rocketman42, on 09/07/2009, -2/+14Not if you're China or India and have over one billion people.
But I agree, pollution is the result of industrialization and development. If you have a billion people farming and emitting as much pollution per capita as an industrialized country with a few hundred million people, you're going to be in real trouble once you start developing. - sivsta, on 09/06/2009, -2/+13And the glacier melt from the Himalayas dwindles...
- gaymathman, on 09/07/2009, -1/+10Less than half of all houses in India have electricity. I think that it's perfectly fine if their co2 emissions grow; countries have to have a strong economy before more expensive energy even becomes an option.
- gaymathman, on 09/07/2009, -2/+11If they retard their economic development by caps on emissions, it would take longer before less polluting plants would be viable.
- Titan615, on 09/07/2009, -4/+13You'd think developing governments/countries would learn from the mistakes of the USSR and the US . I'd bet a million dollars it'd be easier to build a modern renewable infrastructure, than build one that some day you will have to pay billions if not trillions to rebuild/renovate.
We've already pioneered the technology and paid for the development, use it to your benefit. - thelastbushman, on 09/07/2009, -1/+10The west has had 150-200 years of burning fossil fuels (if you think India and China are emitting a lot now, compare that to the emissions over 150-200 years) and all the benefits and development that came with that and now the west wants countries like China and India to forgo that because we have created the monster of global warming... How is that fair? If we want China and India to get serious then we need to both lead by example and give a helping hand (technology, skills, $$$ etc...).
- PR1811, on 09/07/2009, -2/+11If the developed world wants India and other developing nations to skip past the growing pains the developed countries themselves went though then we will need to put our waging finger back in our pockets and give them the money they need to do it properly first time.
Were not going to though. After all, that rubbish we produce needs to go somewhere to be 'recycled'. Those toxic ships are just too expensive to be dismantled in dry docks at home, much easier for barefoot workers to do it on a beach somewhere where we don't have to look at it!
:/ - inactive, on 09/07/2009, -2/+10artey, no offense but you obviously live very far away from the slums.
- BananaGrabber, on 09/07/2009, -1/+9Wouldn't it make more sense to measure it per GDP?
- DarkShroud, on 09/07/2009, -2/+9China does not even make an attempt to clean the smog from their coal plants.
India has a chance to build proper infrastructure. They, like China, are choosing not to and they will pay the price for many decades. They could learn from the mistakes of Russia and our (USA) development history. - tgc1, on 09/07/2009, -5/+11Yeah, sure. Pick on India.
How much pollution did the United States put out when it was developing in the 17, 18 and 1900's? Quite a ***** load more than India me thinks. It's all fine and good to be at the top of the heap and decree that OTHERS should and should not do. Thereby removing any and all potential for them to grow and become part of the upper crust. Along the same lines as the Nuclear Arms Race.
This whole Carbon Emissions business is *****. It puts progress behind in favor of trying to do something we know we cannot. If we do not want to advance, fine. Just stop. We'll all go move into tents. Otherwise, I think we need to just keep going and try to adopt cleaner alternatives as they become financially attractive.
To be certain, there is an economic impact to "going green" -- and right now we just can't ***** afford it. - sndream, on 09/07/2009, -1/+7Everyone need to do their part. I can understand their rights to a better living, but could they at least become a bit more efficient and clean. I mean com'on, India have a brown haze(literally ) above their country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/world/asia/25iht ... - TheGuruStud, on 09/07/2009, -2/+8That description also sounds the the US haha. Large countries are all one and the same. Switch around some of the parties involved and it would be correct to describe the US that way.
- bsdfree, on 09/07/2009, -0/+5I don't care if you're from India or not, there is no way to put a "cap" on a country's population without violating human rights. Not to mention as far as birth rate, India is 77th on the list, and slowing down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and ... - bsdfree, on 09/07/2009, -1/+6Why make an exception for China or India?
A person in India should be allowed the same "carbon footprint" as a person in the US or Europe. Currently the CO2 emissions per person in India are 1/17 that of the US. Given that, asking it to reduce its emissions even further, while somehow expanding its infrastructure to provide clean water, electricity, and other basics we take for granted is not only unrealistic, but cruel.
China, on the other hand, is the largest polluter on the planet. Yet its per capita CO2 emissions are significantly less than that of the US, and they're not even trying to cut down. Just goes to show how much more the US could be doing rather than imposing itself on countries that don't have the benefit of hundreds of years of burning coal/gas. - opticwind, on 09/07/2009, -0/+5Where's the profit?
Unless you can answer that, a company won't do that and a government in a recession can't afford to. - rwac, on 09/07/2009, -2/+7@ClydePRM
force developing nations' economies from "growing too fast and overheating"?!?!
Just so you know you're talking about the difference between poor people starving or not. Between houses getting electricity, running water, indoor plumbing or not.
These are third world countries. - bsdfree, on 09/07/2009, -0/+4Yeah, and who's going to pay for the premium of green technology? India has enough of a budget deficit as it is building LNG plants, and don't tell me they could get the same amount of energy for less with wind/solar/etc, because it's simply not true.
- bsdfree, on 09/07/2009, -0/+4Honestly, if wind was cheaper than LNG, I'm sure India would have already constructed a bunch of windmills. The fact is it's not and either a developed nation has to incentivize it or shut up and let India catch up on its own.
- prashantpawar, on 09/07/2009, -6/+10Bobby1978 you seem to have done a PhD in Slumdog Millionaire.
Honestly speaking you are way far from reality. From A to Z your comments are nothing but an extension and elaboration of Slumdog Millionaire. Hell footage slumdog millionaire used was from 1995. I haven't seen that many slums in India in god knows how long.
The slums exist because the city of Mumbai needs cheap labor, but there are no property rights given to these people. So what you get is poor quality houses but lavish items in those houses.
Do you know that almost all the slums in Mumbai have television, radio, cable tv, even washing machines, cell phones, because if they have to leave the place they can run away with all these things but not with house if they build a proper house.
About the ***** about maharajas and ***** are directly taken from Indiana Jones movie, I bet you believe we eat 'chilled monkey brains' and baby snakes. - bsdfree, on 09/07/2009, -0/+4Agreed. It's already a given that India pollutes, per person, 1/17th that of the US. Asking it to reduce its emissions even further, while somehow expanding its infrastructure to provide clean water, electricity, and other basics we take for granted is not only unrealistic, but cruel.
- gaymathman, on 09/07/2009, -0/+4I'd also like to point out the fact that the author of this article is most likely in one of the highest castes of Indian's society, and as such has lived a life of luxury. Had he been brought up in the slums, I severely doubt that he would be criticizing India's pursuit of international funding for wind and solar energy.
http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/07/21/india-no-to- ... - parmindersingh, on 09/07/2009, -4/+8@ artey I am Indian and I know and admit that bobby1978 is right. C'mon have you too become a victim of the "super power" propaganda. I am guessing you belong to the middle class who like to turn a blind eye to the truth. And for you information I live in Chandigarh where slums are almost non existent and it is the least polluted city in India but I know Chandigarh is NOT India. Stop being frog of the well.
- abhishek23, on 09/07/2009, -3/+7why only blame India.. even US and other developed countries are to blame...
- gaymathman, on 09/07/2009, -0/+3If you understood the nature of that cloud, you would know that most of it came from burning vegetation. People do that when they don't have another way of generating heat, and it is extremely inefficient. Also, there are no emission scrubbers. Having a coal fired plant is an improvement compared to just burning things, as it is markedly more efficient and the exhaust is partially cleaned.
- leftofthecenter, on 09/07/2009, -1/+4The fact that you think that pollution will ruin the river Ganges shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. The river Ganges is already super super polluted with the ashes of the dead from generations upon generations. I've been there, and have never seen such a disgusting body of water in my life. While canoing in it, we past by a dead cow just floating there, and I've heard worse stories by far.
Generally, though, I do agree that corruption does indeed exist there, and the caste system is way unfair, but the people are complacent, because they believe if they live well in the station of life they have, their next life will bring them into a higher position.
As far as pollution, I am against it always, and would encourage any country to avoid rapid escalation of waste dumping. - spoon088, on 09/07/2009, -0/+3Per capita, India has low pollution and should be fine. It's the modern nations that should be doing all the cutting back since they're the ones that caused this entire mess and have the technology and resources to best do so.
- csxtrainwreck, on 09/07/2009, -1/+4Think about the amounts and different kinds of emissions they're emitting. It's not all burning coal and lumber.
- Ferretman, on 09/07/2009, -0/+3You're repeating a common misconception.
CO2 emissions != "dirty air". - Benoldays, on 09/07/2009, -1/+3i remember it too, a scaremongering piece of propaganda
- opticwind, on 09/07/2009, -1/+3I see what you mean, but the argument is that because India is developing it has the opportunity not to reach the out-of-control pollution bigger states have.
- zeth006, on 09/07/2009, -2/+4@rwac
Your rebuttal sums it up best.
If you're the governor a poor country on a limited budget, you're not going to prioritize clean energy and lower emissions over feeding the poor. Plain and simple, no further discussion needed. - Ajajadude, on 09/07/2009, -2/+4If you look at it purely as an issue of developing fast and strong, yes, ignoring emissions is the way to go. But, think of the price they'll be paying down the road, not just in terms of infrastructure upgrade costs but medical problems that occur due to dirty air.
It's easier to deal with the problem before it becomes an actual problem than it is to wait and have to spend the time and money to revamp their infrastructure. At that point, they'll be crying to the rest of the world about how they need money and resources in solving their dirty air problem. - Nudar, on 09/07/2009, -1/+3Yes, but now the technology is widely available thanks to America's growing pains so there's no need for a third world country to pollute in the same way.
- liutang, on 09/07/2009, -5/+7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_per_capita_p ... - opticwind, on 09/07/2009, -0/+1Very valid points.
- sndream, on 09/07/2009, -1/+2A reduced population growth rate can reduce both massive slums AND "brown haze"
- pak314, on 09/07/2009, -0/+1Some of those technologies for reducing emissions did not exist the past 200 years but now do.
- jobobshishkabob, on 09/07/2009, -0/+1Does it matter? I am, and he's right.
- wunksta, on 09/17/2009, -0/+1their emission rates are well below ours. if anything, we need to focus on reducing our own.
- Ferretman, on 09/07/2009, -0/+1Good for them.
-
Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 