I agree that we all have to put in a commensurate effort starting now, not years from now. There is an energy nexus between the two countries in that Australia has abundant coking coal and uranium which India lacks. If we export coal it generates greenhouse pollution and if we export uranium it breaks sanctions for India's defiance of nuclear non-proliferation. I also suggest that India is in many ways the architect of its own misfortune with such a large population. Under current technology India could also achieve higher per-capita energy use with a smaller population.

‘If we expect India to take a stand on controlling climate change, the existing culprits, ourselves included, must be seen to be acting responsibly’

Of course we must. But our responsibility needs to extend far beyond climate change. It needs to encompass everything that will lead us as quickly as possible towards genuine sustainability. Not least population stabilisation.

“Instead of belligerently citing India as a motive for our own inaction, we can experiment, invent, share and guide. We have the breathing room and the economic reserve to lead, rather than follow.”

I don’t know if I’d call it ‘breathing room’…but yes, Australia is in a good position, compared to many countries, to set a shining example of a sustainable society.

Unfortunately it now seems as though it will have to wait until Rudd is booted out….as vastly reduced immigration is one of the major factors in achieving this.

The author says “Unlike Australia, where delayed economic growth may cause increased reliance on social security for some, and drops in discretionary spending for most; delayed economic growth in India will cause death. It’s as simple as that.” And “Indian children are dying now -.”

While from last year’s Annual World Wealth Report released by Merrill Lynch and Capgemini, “India saw its millionaire population surging in 2007 by 22.6 per cent -- which is higher than any other country in the world.”

India’s population in 1950 was 360 million; in 2007 1,132,000 million and increasing at 18 million per year. Yet India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change, released at the end of June, squarely blames the current situation on “high consumption lifestyles in developed countries”.

There is hypocrisy on both, on all, sides. India is living beyond its means for the size of its population, and has been living on its capital such as reserves of ground water. Australia does the same.

The author says “we can experiment, invent, share and guide” as indeed we should – lead rather than follow. For our own benefit at least, we should give an example of how population stabilization is not only necessary, but achievable; and how it is possible to live within the limits of our country’s environmental resources rather than upon depletion of them. We have a long way to go, and will never get there while the present antediluvian mindset prevails for population increase and economic growth in the form of increasing consumption.

Until we face up to that, we have a snowball’s chance in hell of being taken seriously regarding our bleatings on climate change action.

"we excrete almost 30 times more CO2 per person than India does"
The per capita measurement of CO2 (if even ackonwledged as a problem) is worthless. If CO2 is a problem then it doesn't matter a squirt who emits more per capita. India's population is their problem in regards to feeding themselves and CO2 emissions. India has not even tried addressing it's population problem in the way China has.

"The first paragraph of India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change, released at the end of June, squarely blames the current situation on “high consumption lifestyles in developed countries”."
A lifestyle India plans to emulate, if not quite to the same excess. Their sheer numbers will have a much greater effect on the planet and this is their burden. I know which one I'd rather have.

"But if we expect India to take a stand on controlling climate change, the existing culprits, ourselves included, must be seen to be acting responsibly."
One in all in otherwise a waste of time.

The author is right that we consume more than the Indians and Chinese per capita, however, it is a fact that without them cutting emissions, our effort is worthless.

Cutting our emissions first might give us the moral high ground, but leading by example has never convinced anyone to commit to sacrifice.

Putting something in place to get the low hanging fruit is a good thing, but garrotting our economy to make a point will only hurt us.

Take the first step, but don't go alone.

You are assuming that carbon is the major offender.New scientific evidence points to the contrary.If India overpopulates it's country,how is it our responsibility that we should suffer from India's excesses?