HAVES vs HAVE NOTS--2nd Inning

The G8, then G17, meeting on what to do about global warming ended with a whimper.
The underdeveloped countries rightly blame the highly industrialized countries for the huge volume of accumulated CO2 that has fouled our atmosphere. Appealing to the have not nations to control CO2 emmisions means they would remain in a perpetual underdeveloped state. Development and industrialization require tremendous amounts of
energy, which are presently derived from coal and petroleum, both of which are major polluters, but relatively cheap to use. To expect the have not nations to forgo
industrialization is to keep them in perpetual poverty. They will never accept that, so it remains for the haves to take the lead, on two fronts.
First, they must be serious about finding alternative, renewable and clean sources of energy and incorporate them into energy efficient means of production.
Second, they must make those new energy sources and efficiencies available, cheaply, to the have nots, even if this results in their becoming competitors. Such competition would spur innovation and creativity, which in turn lead to better
products, cleanly made, at fair prices. All of those measures will reduce greenhouse
gases, in turn reducing global warming. Equally important, they would improve the standard of living and health all over the globe. That could reduce
terrorism and political conflict as the new haves acquire a stake in a peaceful, prosperous world.
This approach requires some altruism on the part of the haves, and an appreciation
of the new global interdependence which our communication and transportation technologies have brought about. It requires that our politicians think as world statesmen, not Repubs or Dems. Are they up to it, now that a statesman is President?