“Haz a sad” indeed. The New York Times reports that India has, for some strange reason, decided to put the economic prosperity of its people ahead of the alarmist call to cut CO2 emissions:

And not only will India not cut its CO2 emissions, it will increase them:

Increase! But, but … the planet! How will we survive? The ‘splainers at Vox help us out on what needs to happen if India continues to “pollute” while the rest of the world cuts back:

It would entail a radical clean-energy push from all countries — the United States, Europe, China, India. For its part, India would need to ramp up its use of wind, solar, and nuclear power far beyond what it’s now planning. It would have to revamp its transportation policies to become less car-centric. India’s city planners would have to rein in accelerating suburban sprawl. The country would also likely need outside help to develop carbon capture and other advanced technologies.

What’s more, because there’s not much room to maneuver in the “deep decarbonization” scenario, there are lots of opportunities for bickeringamong countries. If India wants even more leeway on emissions, then other countries would have to cut back even more deeply — or else the world will face even more global warming.

Good luck with that as who says China is ever going to cut its emissions?

The main problem for the alarmists with what India just declared — and other poor nations — is that its argument to increase emissions is a sound one. Here’s Matt Yglesisas, for example:

And Andy Revkin:

Yes, India’s argument is pretty persuasive and on a per-capita basis, totally fair and reasonable.


Good news: Salon and Meghan McCain think they can get Republicans to care about global warming 

Hashtag backfire: Mock-a-lanche triggered after global warming alarmist suing Mark Steyn solicits questions

Jimmy Carter laments ‘nutcases’ who deny reality of global warming