Who Gets to Emit?

George Shulz’s Washington Post column on achieving a "climate consensus" — ie: forcing those darn, pesky economists and politicians to ignore rational qualms about global warming policy — seems rather tired.  He, of course, touts the virtues of cap and trade, but then warns that we shouldn’t expect developing countries like China and India to play along:

Do not expect China, India and other developing countries to accept what amounts to a cap on economic growth. They will not — and cannot — do that. We must create market incentives for them to cut emissions while continuing to grow and find actions that are economically feasible in a relatively low-income environment. We may also need to give them extra time, even allowing some short-term emissions growth, before requiring them to reduce their emissions.

So let me get this straight: It’s fine — even good — to put a straight jacket on U.S. energy usage, but the two countries with the fastest emissions growth should be left alone?  Schulz doesn’t get into the details, but presumably this has something to do with the developing nature of their economies and the need for energy usage in order to expand.  Basically, it’s an implicit recognition that for economies to move forward and grow, they need to use energy, and that means producing emissions.

It’s really obvious, of course, but it often gets lost within the mushy rhetoric that surrounds global warming policy — "market-based" energy cap schemes, "financial incentives", etc. — all of which serves to obscure the main point that most half-way politically feasible global warming policies seek to limit vital energy usage, making it more expensive while accomplishing almost no substantial environmental goals.