I do think it is the moral responsibility of those countries that have contributed the greatest amount of the CO2 above pre-industrial levels to get this ball rolling. I think that India and China then need to follow suit. Exactly how quickly and exactly how to balance the urgent short-term needs of Indians with climate needs is not something I claim to know.

This excerpt from Roger’s testimony to some extent addresses my thoughts on this matter:
“It is true of course that a family that does not focus on its utility bill may find themselves in deep trouble. So a focus on the utility bill is indeed important, but that cannot be the entire focus. With respect to the current political debate about the world’s future focused on energy polices, the analysis presented in this testimony based on the assumptions of
IPCC indicates that our focus needs to be much broader — on the path of development itself. A discussion of greenhouse gas mitigation cannot substitute for that broader discussion, but should be a part of it.
The IPCC WG II SPM recognizes the importance of a discussion of development…”

Perhaps another decade of development will benefit the Indian population more than if they immediately adopt restrictive mitigation strategies. In the West, we often forget that so many people don’t have a utility bill to worry about, because they don’t have access to energy.

You imply that it is a bit shady for the Indian politicians to succumb to political pressure in an election cycle. What is political pressure but the will of the people. I suppose the people might not be wise enough to choose the best path for themselves. Or maybe this healthy “conservatism” balances the more radical push to change.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2521-2007.17.pdf

The IPCC reports provided an economic analysis that came to the conclusion that it will cost less in economic growth to respond to AGW than it will cost to do nothing now and just adapt. See also http://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,3343,en_2649_34361_40691458_1_1_1_1,00.html .

“The Indian governement is of the opinion that they do not.”

Or at least that with elections pending (they are going on now), they could not ask this of their people – and hope to win the election.

I openly acknowledge that many people, probably most people, everywhere, not just in India and China, are not yet convinced of the need to take serious proactive action to address AGW. They will give it lip service, but they have other priorities. I don’t see this as an ignored point or a skirted issue. It is a central issue and is discussed constantly. Most people evaluate risks based on their personal experience, and this is out of the bounds of our personal experience.

It is the goal of myself and many of us who accept the opinion of the overwhelming percentage of scientists (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_of_global_warming if you didn’t when I posted it elsewhere) to address this lack of resolve and change it.

For example, by posting the above link on wikipedia that demonstrates that there is no major scientific academy in the world that is in disagreement with the IPCC, I hope that some readers of this blog may see that the consensus is real. By reading the recent article in the LA Times at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-climate-change-australia9-2009apr09,0,7128426,full.story , I hope they will see that climate change isn’t really just about drowning polar bears. You also might want to check out their editorial at http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-ed-australia11-2009apr11,0,2780288.story
The National Geographic April issue also had extensive coverage of the situation in Australia.

“How do you recommend convincing them?”

I would note that when hardship hits people, they seem to want something specific to blame. The idea that some disaster is just random and normal is not a concept that people like to accept. As such, as the compost hits the fan, there is a good chance that people will come around. As the LA Times article and editorial shows, it is happening in Australia now. The question is whether that will be in time given the likelihood of the growth of positive feedback mechanisms in the coming years.

That’s total emissions, from the pre-industrial times through the present day even WITHOUT reductions in emissions by developed nations.

India and China must at least agree to biding future reductions in emissions, even if these reductions won’t have any practical impact for several decades.

Without such an agreement, reductions by developed nations will be utterly
pointless and the United States, in particular, will have no chance of mustering the political will to make meaningful change. [Even with commitments from India and China, I am skeptical.]

Climate change is a fact that neither skeptic or alarmist is in denial about. Those that believe humans can significantly control the climate are not in denial, they are delusional. Those that believe they can stop Manhattan island from submerging under the oceans that have been rising for 20,000 years by changing humans consumption patterns will be laughed at by future history.

But whatever amount of mitigation is possible, it should not be used – in my opinion – to suggest that we just treat climate change as fate just because climate change is a permanent feature on earth. I don’t get the sense that that is Roger Pielke’s attitude either.

Climate change and adaptation are a permanent feature of life on earth. Humans will adapt regardless whether there is a plan or not. People who make their living making plans don’t like to hear this or deny this reality but it is an obvious fact.