Carbon Apologies?

President Obama sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to India, where she promptly apologized for the US emitting carbon.

"We acknowledge now with President Obama that we have made mistakes in the United States, and we along with other developed countries have contributed most significantly to the problem that we face with climate change," she said. "We are hoping a great country like India will not make the same mistakes."

She was referring to Obama's statement in Italy earlier this month that the U.S. had "sometimes fallen short" of its responsibilities in controlling its carbon emissions.

Speaking at a news conference on the pool side patio of the Taj Mahal Palace & Hotel, which was strewn with bodies after terrorists attacked this coastal city last November, she cast India and the United States as allies in the fight against terrorism.

Never mind that it was carbon emissions that turned the United States into an economic powerhouse and established the arsenal of democracy standing up to the Nazis and then the Communists of the Soviet Union all while creating a high standard for Americans, which many now take for granted. Apparently, all that requires an apology.

India was having none of this though. They know that their future relies on building up a manufacturing and technological base that requires carbon emissions and they're not going to sacrifice their chance to improve the standard of living of hundreds of millions of Indians to placate a bunch of eco-leftists who think that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and must be controlled.

That India is building more energy efficient buildings is besides the point - the sheer number of people and the desire to improve their quality of life means that more carbon will be emitted. Saving money is the name of the game and in a recessionary economic environment, that trumps some claim that the environment must be saved by reducing emissions.

The thing of it is that most people want to live like Americans do. They want a high standard of living and want the creature comforts that we take for granted. That comes at a cost - and the ecoleftists don't want that dream to be for everyone, not even all Americans. They want to restrict energy development, which drives up the costs, requiring people to make choices that they wouldn't otherwise have to make. Energy alternatives that provide zero emissions are available, but are passed over because the eco-left and NIMBY has thwarted new development in the US (see, power, nuclear), which would have a smaller footprint kilowatt v. kilowatt for wind or solar power, which aren't always consistent in their output.

Curiously, the New York Times, the so called paper of record, ignored the Clinton apology, while delving into the fact that both China and India oppose carbon caps because their per capita emissions is far lower than that of the United States. Neither is going to sacrifice their economic development to fulfill this carbon scheme.

UPDATE:
Don Surber links. Thanks!