• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • India Balks at Hillary Clinton’s Carbon Reduction Talk, Questions Global Warming Science

    For any carbon reduction scheme to succeed in reducing global carbon emissions, the plan itself must be global in nature. The problem is, the world’s two biggest emerging powers and carbon emitters, China and India, have no interest in joining any such pact.

    That was made all the more evident today, when Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh informed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in the country for diplomatic talks, that India would oppose any push for legally binding carbon emissions caps. Earlier this week, he said:

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

    Ramesh was back in the news again today, this time rejecting the science behind global warming and calling Western countries out for unnecessary alarmism:

    We have to get out of the preconceived notion, which is based on western media, and invest our scientific research and other capacities to study Himalayan atmosphere. Science has its limitation. You cannot substitute the knowledge that has been gained by the people living in cold deserts through everyday experience.”

    Ramesh reiterated his stance that India would not enter into any carbon reduction policy or treaty, which certainly undermines the argument for a U.S. cap and trade policy. (Of course, there are many other reasons not do move forward with cap and trade.) Unless other countries are under the same economic pressures that cap and trade would impose on the U.S., American companies will simply move operations overseas and any reductions in emissions domestically will simply be offset by emissions increases elsewhere. The economic harm inflicted by the legislation would be for naught, since global emissions reductions would be negligible.

    His remarks on global warming messaging should not be taken lightly, either. According to a new study from The Science and Public Policy Institute, “the federal Government has a near-monopsony on climate science funding. This distorts the science towards self-serving alarmism.”

    Key findings of the study can be found here. Forget trading gold and silver and other commodities. The study finds that “[c]arbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks, which profit most, are calling for more. Experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 – $10 trillion in the near future. Hot air will soon be the largest single commodity traded on global exchanges.”

    Ramesh’s rebuke also speaks to the devastating economic reality of inflexible emissions caps. It is noteworthy that he felt the need to point out that global environmental policy must “[take] note of the special concerns of countries like India for continuing with their path of economic growth with the objective of poverty eradication.”

    The implicit message is simple: emissions caps will inflict unacceptable economic hardship on millions of the poorest Indians. It’s not hard to understand India’s reasoning, either. Poverty alleviation is a far more serious and immediately valuable goal than the nebulous call to reduce emissions for marginal potential decreases in global temperatures.

    Perhaps most alarmingly, the announcement raises the prospect of protectionist policies with India that could exacerbate the adverse economic effects of a cap and trade program. The Waxman-Markey global warming bill requires the implementation of carbon-based tariffs if China and India fail to implement their own emissions regulations by 2020. If and when that occurs, India will likely retaliate with tariffs of its own.

    This is an especially troubling prospect given India’s status as an emerging world economy. The last thing the U.S. should do is to jeopardize the competitiveness of its firms in establishing a foothold in one of the world’s fastest growing consumer market.

    But it’s good to see that India isn’t drinking the cap and trade Kool-Aid, valuing economic growth and prosperity over uncertain environmental gains. U.S. lawmakers and diplomats want countries like India and China to follow our lead, but perhaps we should be following theirs.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    11 Responses to India Balks at Hillary Clinton’s Carbon Reduction Talk, Questions Global Warming Science

    1. Steve M, Michigan says:

      Has anybody noticed that the average temperature of Mars has increased by approximately 2.3 degrees Celsius over the last several decades. Please feel free to check my facts. Also, has anybody noticed the amount of large scale industrial complexes on Mars? Maybe it's Bush's fault.


    3. albert,campbellsvill says:

      Perhaps we should look to india and china that seens to be where all our jobs are.And guess what alot more will be there with hussein chasing business overseas at record numbers,they cant prosper in this far left environment.

    4. Michael Labriola says:

      Please invstigate natural gas cars as they are much more environmentaly cleaner and also nuclear as we can become more energy independant.

      Thank you.

    5. TonyfromOz, Queensla says:

      There is one thing in this whole argument that people fail to take into account when it comes to China and India.

      In the US, electrical power is split up fairly evenly three ways with Residential, Industrial, and Commercial, with residential the (slight) biggest.

      In China and also India, the power that they generate goes around 80% Industrial, 10% Commercial, and only 10% to the residential sector.

      This effectively means that almost one billion people in China, and around the same in India have no access to electrical power whatsoever, let alone a constant and regulated supply that we take so much for granted.

      All China and India are doing is trying to build coal fired power plants and bringing them on line at the rate of one every seven days, so that they can give their people what we already have, that access to electrical power.

      For political grandstanding for the sake of a perceived 'green' vote, those now in power are seeking to make emissions deals that will effectively consign those 2 Billion people to a life without the electricity we have, and now wish to deny them.

    6. Spiritof76 says:

      I am glad to see that India and China are debunking the Cap and Trade (Porky and Melarkey Bill)scam.

      We need to get rid of the socilaists within the Democratic Party and from ever occupying any seat in the US Congress or any State legislature.

    7. Pingback: PA Pundits - International

    8. sara, ontario says:

      pardon my ignorance, but what language do they speak in india? see, i know my sons will need to immigrate there some day in order to be able to make a living and provide for their families so i'd like them to learn the language now to avoid any hassle that might cause them in their immigration process.

    9. Linda J Hutchinson says:

      The biggest problem with this whole issue is that the biggest polluters in the world will be allowed to continue being the biggest polluters in the world because the whole system is corrupt.

      It isn't our backyard gardens causing global warming. Actually, we're in a "cooling phase", which proponents of Cap and Tax refuse to acknowledge.

      Stop the wealthy industrialists from polluting first, with no fraud, no kickbacks, no racketeering, no corruption. Then, talk to us "little people" about what we can do.

      Again, it is our corrupt elected officials who are at the core and we'll be cleaning house in 2010!

    10. albert campbellsvile says:

      I love this Indian guy can I vote for him

    11. Pingback: The Magic Disappearing Data « Pond’rings

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.