*** UPDATE *** INDIA'S POSITION on THE CRISIS, CLARIFIED ***

From "The Hindu," a name for a paper that would certianly raise eyebrows here in the states:

‘India will not agree to targets for cutting carbon emissions’ K. Venugopal

SAPPORO (JAPAN): Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said emphatically that India would not accept any targets that may be set by international bodies reducing its carbon emissions.

Speaking at a press conference onboard a special Air India aircraft flying him to Japan for meetings on the margins of the G-8 summit, where climate change and curbing of carbon emissions are expected to be hot issues of debate, Dr. Singh said, “Our position has been made very clear.”

“India cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be regarded as a major polluter of greenhouse gases,” he said. “Our contribution to global emissions is less than 4 per cent. On per capita basis it is among the lowest — an average of 1.2 tonnes.”

“For us the topmost priority is development,” he said, but added that India had brought out a national plan to deal with climate change.

At this point the PM has my full support. Heck; I think "development," with its rampant higher standards of living, healthier quality of life, and longer lifespans, and more economic opportunities for more people, might just be a "topmost priority" worthy of the tag.

Oh but then, being a politician, he has to soft-peddle and blame-shift:

“I had said ...that India’s per capita emissions of greenhouse gases will never exceed the average of the developed countries, and therefore if the developed countries make deeper cuts, that will be an incentive for us to move at a faster pace,” he said.

Too bad. I wished he'd just stopped after the whole "development is more important than some overblown and ultimately feeble attempt to save the planet."

***

What's up with all the green, anyway? It's the "SmartWay," you stupid carbon-emitter!

A score, posted on new vehicles — a "scale from 1 to 10" — indicating how "green" they are?

At first, I thought it was just an easy way for some to hunt down the "1" vehicles just to thumb their noses at the chicly hysteric:


But Drudge's headline misses the bit at the end:

While this law is intended to help consumers take into account emissions while purchasing cars, a proposed law in the European Union would require E.U. public sector bodies put a price on emissions.

A law endorsed by the European Parliament's Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety would make governments put a monetary cost on the emissions of vehicles they plan to purchase, and add that to expense calculations.

Fascinating. Why would any legislative body require expense estimates on the emissions of state-run entities? Do you need three guesses?


Sigh...


I've said it before, and I'll say it again: look for innovative and interesting ways to lesson the overall (gross) impact of consuming upon the environment. Sometimes it's a win-win, like finding low-fat milk that's less expensive than regular milk. I've been doing it for decades.

I dig Ed Begley, Jr., who promotes a comically complicated "simple" lifestyle, but — and this is the point — he is honest about it, and also notes that he began living his new lifestyle because he was an out-of-work actor and had to "do things on the cheap."

But don't yield to the panic and the giving over — to unelected ruling cliques, no less! — of your freedoms and the freedoms of society, in the name of "saving the planet."

Legislation such as the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act is fishy enough, and that's giving freedoms back to our own elected representatives. Why would I want to yield control of the USA to the United Nations, a proven hive of scum and villainy?

Er — The UN? Can't we just go to Mos Eisley?