Putting aside the population question it could be noted that Asia generally lacks a balanced set of physical resources. India for example needs to import coking coal. China imports oil and ore concentrates. While China has coal in Mongolia it is easier to ship imported coal to the southern cities and Australia will be a preferred supplier. This could explain Chinese interest in acquiring chunks of companies like Rio Tinto. It also explains how vulnerable they are to others 'turning off the tap'.

If the US, Europe and Australia cleaned up their emissions they would have the moral authority to impose carbon tariffs on imports from Asia ranging from steel to call centre services. Note that this will share the pain as it hurts both the Western consumer and the Asian producer. We may have to accept that millions will always be poor in Asia even as our own living standards decline.

Hey Tas

Post limits prevented me from commenting yesterday, but ...

Do you think Nair's article is too balanced, straight down the middle and spot on to stir even the most rabid of OLOers?

Looks like it.

Chandran, this is all back to front thinking. You made the “Worlds fate” linked to AGW, then linked AGW to developed nations’ consumerism, then extended this economic problem to the increased consumerism of the developing world that will in turn compound the problem of AGW by being greater consumers?

AGW may or may not exist; hence, it may or may not have an economic cost. The global economy may or may not have to adjust for any economic impact however; it will keep on working the way it does.

The developing nations will, and must be rewarded for their development efforts. They will develop pretty much the same way the developed nations did, with technology, science, industrialization and consumerism.

The developed nations will make room for this by giving up those industries, (often very reluctantly), that are economically unsustainable for them. Those industries they hang on to are already more focused on science, technology, medicine, logistics and services as they are forced, by the market, to hand the heavy manufacturing sector to developing nations.

This is already taking place and seems set to continue with or without emissions cap and trade, which will in any event favor the developing nations. I think Globalization will continue to provide the marketing framework for the worlds’ economy and, in the absence of any other mechanism is the only means of delivering economic equity. It may have been created by the developed nations however, because they are part of it they must also be driven by it. That includes the bad bits as well as the good bits.

Q&A, not I don't think so, I got a bunch of Server Errors when I posted to this, so didn't bother again .. perhaps others suffered the same.

Seems likely given the passion most have for this subject.

Sorry if that disappoints you.

Interesting how few comments this article has attracted. Personally, I suspect that it speaks volumes about the dominance of elitist, white, middle-class Westerners in environmental politics. Quite simply, comfortable white folks in Washington and Brussels don't want to know what all those faceless brown hordes think, they just want to tell them what to do.

On the article itself: It's an interesting perspective, but starts on a number of flawed premises. "The oceans will be emptied", Chandran says, without any explanation, much less evidence, of why this is so.

Mostly, I think it's flawed reasoning to suppose that prosperity for developed nations necessarily need equal American-style consumption. There is a good case that America at the moment is over-consuming. It is therefore possible that America could lower its consumption without ill-effect; in fact, the possibility is that it might be beneficial (such as lower rates of obesity, and related health conditions).

What is also clear is that America, and especially Europe, is capable of producing more food than even they can consume now. There is no reason why resource-rich areas such as Asia or Africa could not do the same.

The Tax offices notice on this web page says " Don't take the Bait, Dodgy schemes can come back to bite you".... I couldn't have said it better myself!