[cryptoz]

Yes we do need government intervention to innovate and solve this climate problem. The free market does not work here because the actual, real cost of greenhouse gas emissions is not correctly adjusted. The runaway warming effect is going to cost enormous sums of money to solve and will cost us dearly in life, ecosystems, and global stability.

Corporations have long shown that they are not interested in truth, or sustainable profits, or people's health, or the environment. In fact, due to lack of government intervention, corporations like Exxon spread harmful propaganda that decreases the public's awareness about critical issues like climate change.

Collective action is important because this is otherwise a failure of humanity to recognize a tragedy of the commons. We need to collectively agree to solve the problem, through governments, because otherwise individual actors like states and corporations will increase their own wealth through greed at the expense of others.

[tannerwj]

Agree to disagree I guess. Global warming is something that needs to be addressed, but it is being heavily exaggerated. This does not help anyone except for the alarmists. It causes us to put our resources in areas that aren't useful. That money could be spent much more wisely elsewhere. In addition, the US is already doing fine without government interference, as shown by the decrease in US CO2 emissions over the past 2 decades.

Besides all the jobs and other economic factors that would disadvantage the US on a global scale if they agreed to the accord, we just have to look to Germany - a country that is following the standards put in place by the accord - to see what the consequences would be. They pay more than 3x per kWh for electricity than the US. This might be something that the middle class and up could afford, but this would unfairly target the poor and in poorer countries would cause death and suffering. This alone is reason enough to look for better solutions.

[coldpie]

> Global warming is something that needs to be addressed, but it is being heavily exaggerated.

It isn't. Please read the latest IPCC Summary for Policymakers. It's a relatively quick and easy summary of the current scientific (yes, scientific, not opinion) understanding of the state of climate change, where the climate is heading, and what will be required to prevent or mitigate bad outcomes. Yes, scientific understanding changes and improves over time, but the best thing to base your decision making on is the scientific understanding we have now, not hopeful guesses about the future.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_...

[tannerwj]

Sheesh, I'm getting downvoted to oblivion here just for having a differing opinion. Believe me, I've studied the science. I want to study it even more. I've just gained a different opinion based on that study than the majority on this chain obviously. I guess my opinion is not welcome.

[coldpie]

Your opinion is not only at odds with the majority on this site, but also with almost every climate scientist on the planet. We tend to respect the scientific method on HN. If you're going to claim that every climate scientist is wrong, you'll at least need to speak from a position of authority or preferably show some evidence to back up your opinion.

[tannerwj]

I haven't claimed anything of the sort. I respect the scientific method more than most. At least read what I've written before you say such things. Climate change is an issue, but the Paris Accord is a horrible excuse at throwing money at a problem. And if you read what I said earlier it could have serious repercussions for people who cannot afford the price increases for energy.

We need to move past the 'climate denying' insults and work together to find actual feasible solutions. Downvoting/insulting/bashing anyone who doesn't agree with a solution will get us nowhere. This in itself is a serious problem and disagrees with the scientific method in every way.