The presupposition that the US has to take the lead reveals that the writer holds non-western cultures like the Chinese, or Indians, to be devoid of the rationality or reason to solve complex problems. Or....and this is worse - and I think shown quite often among certain writers and social commentators - they

Apart from Brazil - which due to its European heritage no doubt has people that care about gaseous emissions into the atmosphere and how that might affect future generations - the worst polluters in the world apart from the US - although the US is at least willing to take concrete steps to try to reduce emissions - the other two have point blank stated they want no part of it. Worse still, given the nature of their cultural values, namely that they have no goodwill towards those outside of their immediate tribe (India has a medieval caste system in particular) their own people do not care about pollution in the way that westerners do.

And before you criticise this argument by saying they are poor, they are not. India and China are very wealthy countries, with middle-classes larger than that of the US. The problem is with all non-western cultures, is that they do not distribute their wealth to the poor.

Corruption is rife, so programs to install plumbing and drainage systems in neighbourhoods just gets stolen by local councils, and the poor people get no recompense.

Utterly devoid of humanity, such cultures need to be forced into adopting whatever measures the civilised west decides.

I wonder what it would take to show fools like this woman what they are suggesting.

Perhaps we should require a modest level of math be acquired before anyone can become an academic.

Without the wealth that can only be generated by fossil fuels, now, & for the foreseeable future, the world could not afford the tens of thousands of academics, like her, who sit on their buts, in some ivory tower, & write this garbage.

Yes, we might all be better off without that wealth, if it meant these twits were put to work doing something useful, it would do her, & my heart good.

The article is quite right in suggesting that universal action is required to really do anything about emission reduction, but then does not take the obvious step of declaring effective action to be impossible.
Even if there was much less doubt about IPCC attempts to forecast the state of an extremely complex natural system decades into the future and the cost-benefit calculations could be made to add up, the political will would still not be there.
If you consider emissions to be a problem and believe the IPCC projections then start buying sun block for your grand children.

Sustainable economies have to arise from the current quagmire of vested interests, corrupt governments and historical wealth enclaves now in existence. Chances are it will happen in Asia, as this is where the expertise is being developed and the culture embraces improvement rather than protectionism.
New technology is unwelcome in Australia as it impinges on the rent seeking traditional industries. The Skunkworks concept of "plan to fail 80% of the time" is totally lost on the bean counter and lawyer set. (BTW: The 20% that do not fail more than pay for the 80% that do. The point is real innovation and progress, new industries and game changers.) Scientists and engineers in the West are hounded by Bankers, Lawyers and other economic parasites so that even when game changers are found they are not supported and inevitably die a death of parked patents, legal attack (ah la Microsoft, IBM) or just financial starvation. (The recent gas Fuel Cell is a good eg.)
Hasbeen: Are you really sure that only oil and gas can provide for now and "foreseeable future"? Can you not acknowledge that you might be unaware of some cutting edge tech? Given that large scale solar thermal systems using mirrors, molten salts and steam turbines can get pretty close to coal per Kilowatt, I'd be shocked if there were not many more. So long as oil and gas are priced without all the costs included (tax exemptions and other special treatment makes them seem more viable than the actually are) then it will be hard to compare apples with apples.
Energy is more a cultural problem: One of entrenched interests, lack of transparency and exploitation of nations by other nations. So long as the US is hypocritical, war based, and at the mercy of religious ignorance it will continue the bankrupting battle for other peoples' energy. Australia will probably import Chinese clean energy systems. :-(

That's the first time I've heard China and India described as 'utterly devoid of humanity'.

Alternative energy will only come on line when it is economical and practical to do so. Its the inefficiencies of such energies which stop their progress not the ill will of oil barons.

Solar,wind power etc are expensive and far less efficient than oil and coal. We can't afford them as yet and the now discredited Global Warming fears have put them back a step further.

We all want energy efficiency and low pollution but the writer seems to think that Obama can wave a magic wand and these new energies will suddenly become economically feasible.

The Carbon Tax is simply a false way to make alternative energies seem more efficient by making more efficient energies more expensive than they need to be.