You can see their point. China and India account for 10 per cent and 3 per cent, respectively, of the man-made greenhouse gases now in the atmosphere, compared with 75 per cent for the developed world (according to data compiled by the World Resources Institute). So why, they ask, should they cut their emissions of carbon dioxide? In July, India’s environment minister Jairam Ramesh bluntly told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that his country (the world’s fifth-leading greenhouse-gas emitter) would not accept emissions cuts as part of a global climate treaty. China, now the world’s No.1 carbon emitter, demands that developed countries “take responsibility for their historical cumulative emissions and current high per capita emissions to ... substantially reduce their emissions” while developing countries pursue “economic development.” Read: no emissions cuts here.  

Standing on principle is laudable, not to mention catnip for domestic audiences who resent being told by SUV-driving Americans to cut CO2 emissions. But the stance has one little downside. A special place in climate hell is being reserved for India and China. They will suffer more from global warming than, for instance, Western Europe. That reflects the fact that nature always batters the poor more than the rich. The rich can afford to move, build sea walls, turn on the AC, and buy more expensive food; the poor starve, drown in typhoons, see their shanties swept away in tidal surges, and die in the heat waves and disease outbreaks that will become more common in a mercury-rising world.

... contd.