[siscia]

Your question, while interesting, is not a counter argument to any of my points.

Anyhow, western countries do not have enough resource to finance clean energy in India. Or, at least, there are more pressing issue from the point of view of the average elector/citizen.

[shripadk]

> Anyhow, western countries do not have enough resource to finance clean energy in India.

Then they should refrain from advising India on it's energy program. The biggest polluter, after China, is the United States and the EU. Emission per capita is 16.5t and 6.7t in comparison to India's 1.8t. That is pretty crazy considering that the population of US is not even 1/3rd of India. If US isn't serious about moving to clean energy why would India be?

Every country has "pressing issues" of it's own and that includes India as well. The country needs energy and lots of it. It would be great if moving to clean energy was faster and cheaper than setting up coal based plants. It's just not the case.

[lenkite]

Dude, you know this "oh well they shat in the river so we get to do so too", is not a really great argument when our cities like Delhi are covered in dangerous smog, our coastal villages are regularly flooded with sea water and the cancer incidence rates in our population are skyrocketing.

[shripadk]

And as far as cities like Delhi being covered in dangerous smog: it has more to do with city/town planning than climate change alone. Most of India's "pollution-creating" populace is situated in cities. You and I both know how congested our cities are. The only way to fix this issue is decongestion. One positive outlook is the "100 smart cities plan" announced by Prime Minister. That should enable urban population to spread out. Factories will automatically move out of these over-populated cities reducing pollution.

Coastal villages being flooded with sea water is definitely a big concern. That is the direct impact of climate change and the only way to fix it is reducing CO2 emissions. However, the fix for it doesn't lie with India alone. India produces only 1.8t of emissions per capita. US, China, EU have to take the lead. Only then will it have any meaningful impact. With the US threatening to back out of Paris climate deal, the silver lining that existed for reversing/stopping climate change is at the verge of disappearing. Trump's climate change denial is going to cost the World dearly. It may not affect you and I today, but the impact will definitely be felt by future generations.

[shripadk]

I'm talking about "seriousness" of moving to clean energy. The emissions per capita is highest in China, US and EU. India comes 4th. Asking India to move quickly towards clean energy while these bigger emitters continue polluting doesn't work. It is plain hypocrisy.

Even if India alone accomplished it's goal of 100% clean energy it won't stop climate change. Even though I like some of Trump's policies I don't think he is correct when it comes to US contribution to fixing the climate issues. He has already said that he will be pulling out of Paris climate deal. That means not only will US back out of funding third-world countries in tackling climate change, it will itself not move towards clean energy at the pace it would have. If US does back out of the deal, forget reversing global warming and achieving the 2 degree celsius magic number.