So a Minister of State wields the House of Commons by his manner alone; while his friends and his foes are equally at a loss to account for his influence, looking for it in vain in the matter or style of his speeches. So the air with which a celebrated barrister waved a white cambric handkerchief passes for eloquence. So the buffoon is taken for a wit. The way to secure success is to be more anxious about obtaining than about deserving it; the surest hindrance to it is to have too high a standard of refinement in our own minds, or too high an opinion of the discernment of the public. He, who is determined not to be satisfied with anything short of perfection, will never do any thing at all, either to please himself or others. The question is not what we ought to do, but what we can do for the best.

Looking at future options, why does it matter if India and China are or are not similar in terms of energy consumption and needs? Global treaties aim to modify future consumption, and mechanisms or formulae that are considered fair (and likely to be ratified) must be cognizant of differences. Given the differences in their systems, needs, and incentives, a proposal meant to appeal to both may not appeal to either. Without global participation, no solution is likely work.
China's growth of energy consumption has been positive for its population. It has now provided electricity to an estimated 98 percent of households, unlike India or Africa. India has not met its energy growth targets even in the absence of carbon constraints—can we realistically expect it to moderate due to global concerns when it will say it is not the prime polluter?