[iwintermute]

> Certainly not, or else climate science would still be in thorough disagreement

Looking at Europe - I see the decisions, policies and agreement. Looking at USA I see conscious decision to ignore the science predictions when it suits some political goals in short term and not to ignore when it's vital - like when planning military strategy in Middle East.

So I think my point still stands.

[VHRanger]

How many coal mines or tar sands fields are there in europe?

[iwintermute]

You can take a look at Germany[1]. And see the results of “Energiewende”[2]

[1] http://euracoal2.org/download/Public-Archive/Library/Charts-... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-16/germany-j...

Your point being?

[VHRanger]

The US (and Canada and Australia) are bad on climate change because they have entrenched interests in fossil fuels which leads to political lobbying.

Europe doesn't have those specific problems, but it has others.

Politicians will do whatever has political benefits to them. Economic benefits, or even reality, are purely secondary. You might get the occasional exceptionally altruistic politician, but the average one will act on his incentives.

This is why you see stuff like the Reinhart & Rogoff paper, which never passed peer review, touted for austerity politics even long after it was retracted. Austerity is popular with a part of the population and politicians will use whatever to justify whatever they're trying to do.

Judging anything on its political success is nonsense