"Contesting Trump's claims of 'billions and billions and billions' of foreign aid to India, the TOI report noted that total foreign aid to India in 2015 was only $3.1 billion, with US aid to India only around $100 million. These figures are further expected to drop down to $34 million in 2018.

It is interesting to note that India buys $100 million worth of California almonds alone every year, besides billions in armaments from the US."

As with all initial debugging steps, try in incognito and see if you have the same behavior.

Quid pro quo.

How the treaty will get Oklahoma to take personal responsibility is beyond me.

If every other country follows the Paris accord, and many US states, it really won't matter as much what Oklahoma does.

The OP's point is still reasonable in terms of both absolute magnitude as well as per-capita, in that India, as a developing country and yet one of the most populous countries on the planet, consumes far less energy than developed states and is not as immediate a threat to life as we know it on a global basis, such as the US is. Indian policies towards coal consumption, no matter how progressive they can get, cannot hope to match the immediate impact their counterparts in the US can achieve today (and choose not to), and the current US administration does not really have grounds to point fingers elsewhere.

What part of this is comparing India to India?

That's really the tipping point for solar - if it can provide a better return then coal plants. It's getting close, but the significant thing is that solar scales so much better then coal because you can build it anywhere - minimal environmental impact statements, no real supply lines other then grid access, minimal staffing and maintenance. If a straight up solar farm can provide a reliable return on investment over coal power, then no one is going to bother building coal plants any longer unless tax-breaks rain from the heavens (which they might).

And the kicker is very much that scalability aspect - solar doesn't even need to provide much of a better return then coal plants to beat them, it just needs to be deployable in such volume that the obvious investment strategy becomes "build solar".

And we're getting there - fast.

States NEED to take responsibility. If we are to change as a nation we need to stop looking at the globe and do a bit of introspection so that we can change internally. Otherwise if states are left out of the equation then the problem of climate change can never be solved.

While the federal government can possibly do that, and it is a huge possibility, trying to get the states to change at the grassroots is of far greater impact, and efficiency, as that is the Number 1 problem that USA faces. Not a lack of federal imposition, but a lack of grassroots understanding in America. And the one thing Americans hate perhaps the most is being told what to do by men in suits.

This sort of argument is exactly why I see environmentalism as anti-human at its heart.

He did it for economic reasons and most of the renewable energy produced in the Statss are from red states. We have to invest in transmission lines and continue the PTC if we want to continue being #1 in Wind and these are both bipartisan issues. Just not very important to either party right now

I remember the first electric car, hailed as a true step forward, that was subsequently killed. Go to Santa Monica beach patrol stations and see all of the failed electric car station plug poles that were sawed off and tossed onto a heap to rot. The end result of an economy that pushed SUVs over what we are currently seeing. And yes, for the most part those status junkies traded their SUVs for Priuses.

We are asked to conserve water when the wasteful farms and elites use more water than every citizen combined and our efforts (I recall as a youth, if it's yellow let it mellow as an allusion to not flushing if you don't have to) are literally a drop in the bucket. I remember my dad putting a brick in our toilet tank to reduce overall water capacity in an effort to 'do our part'; all the while our neighbors ignored the lawn watering rules (like our officials watered their estate grounds).

San Fernando Valley stopped watering or used minimal recycled water on the median's vegetation and trees in "an effort to save water". They even went so far to print signs everywhere along these plots and all advertising spaces (bus stop, billboard, etc) which have their own environmental impact that's conveniently ignored. End result is that all of these well matured trees died and cracked or burned in the subsequent year's end.

We also get billboards about food waste costing us water (one about eggs is fairly prevalent) which goes back to ignoring the actual major sources of waste.

The Nestlé corporation was allowed to do this: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36161580 And yet we are expected to 'do our part' to help a corporation's profits?

Lastly, recycling. We are asked at every turn to recycle amd separate garbage to an extent, yet there is no punishment for recycling thieves like in New York. So we taxpayers fund recycling efforts, containers, centers and trucks only to have the proverbial gold stolen each night by thieves. I stopped sorting my garbage when I was driven to the brink being woken every trash day at 3 am by opportunists raiding every can thoroughly. I had compassion until then. Most who still do have not had first hand experience in their ivory gated communities.

In summation, the best laid plans if the misguided bleeding hearts.

Central banks also tend to (sometimes sensibly) clamp down on services that are closer to core (profitable? :P) banking services like interest & loans, so telco wallets with this functionality built in house are much rarer.

Yes. Area doesn't consume energy, people do. Otherwise Russia would be the most eco-friendly country in the world, and something like Luxembourg should be considered an abject failure of environmental policy.

Airtel's offer may be temporary, and interest rates rarely go to 7%, but the point is that there's always a competition on interest rates.

India's inflation and nominal interest rates are both higher, which means you lose more if you forgo interest. In a hypothetical country with 5% inflation and a 5% interest rate, if you forgo interest, you lose 5% every year. In a country with 2% inflation and 2% interest rate, you lose only 2%.

How can other countries do that?

You are correct environment is not reason we should be worried . it is about the people, not the planet. 99% of the all species are already extinct one more large scale extinction event while terrible is not the end of life on this planet and the planet has seen far worse, life will survive long after we are gone. Sea level raise will adversely 60 % of the human population who live in the coast many of whom are poor. Changing weather patterns and climate change will affect the developing countries far more than first world countries who will have the resources to manage the effects . There are whole island countries that will disappear within the turn of the century. This is why developing countries are in very touch spot, they will need to balance both development of basic services and also find a meaningful solution to the problem.