SEARCH BLOG: GLOBAL WARMING
Politics and science are not often good bedfellows. They are even less likely to occupy the same bedroom when the politics and science are those sponsored by the United Nations.
Most of you have read that the Kyoto efforts to reduce CO2 have been essentially replaced by the G8 (Europe and U.S.) alternative proposals and now the G8 proposal is being rejected by China and India. [from Benny Peiser] It is not in their self-interest.
Sure, in per capita terms, the west produces more CO2 than China or India by a large margin. But because the populations of those two countries are so large, they will be the largest absolute producers of CO2 very soon. Still, they reject the notion that they should alter their economic development paths to conform with the UN urging to use more non-fossil fuel power sources.
What does this mean?
Quite simply, it follows the old saw that "a bird in hand is worth two in the bush." China and India see clear evidence that their economic development plans are working... fabulously. They realize that the steps needed to reduce their CO2 output would dramatically reduce that economic growth. So, the clear economic choice is to ignore the political pleadings of the rest of the world and continue on their present path.
But what about their future which will be endangered by oppressive heat, droughts, lost shorelines, etc.?
The answer is simple: they are not worried about that. Why? Probably because they see the predicted problems as much too remote of a possibility to give up their economic futures for it. They haven't seen any, not just some but any, evidence that they are presently being affected by politically-sponsored global warming... nor are they likely to be affected over at least the next 100 or so years.
By then, their economic and technological developments are very likely to allow them to deal with any remote possibility that climate change will have an adverse affect on them.
..
