[matt4077]

US companies and individuals were already taking up the challenge, mostly by arguing for this agreement. The agreement's purpose is to set common standards, so as to defuse the race-to-the-bottom/prisoner's dilemma mechanisms of markets.

Companies often invite regulation when they want to do something for moral reasons that would out them at a disadvantage in the market. It's a common mistake to assume that industries object to all regulation: think of the small construction business where the owner still works himself, or cares for his people: he'll be among those profiting most from increased safety requirements.

[nickik]

> Companies often invite regulation when they want to do something for moral reasons

More often they invite regulation when they can get some gain for themselves. Its very common to pull in the state to enforce oligopolies because they would be stable for example, history of US railroads is basically that.

Government working against climate is basically bushiness competing to capture the rain of subsidies that will be flowing down the pipe. The businesses that are part of the status quo, work against this because they don't want their privileges and subsidies eroded.

Venture capitalist of course love climate subsidies because that means lots of startups and new tech. They don't make a dime on coal.

[candiodari]

Arguing is all that's been done. Arguing, and demonstrations, and actions, and earth hour, and presumably some puppies were left home with the air conditioning set down one notch.

Oh no ! US withdraws from the climate accords. What impact will it have ? Well here's what happened when the US and the world agreed to "binding" climate accords:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/images/g...

Can you see it ? Me neither ... There are no words ...

Binding climate accords were signed in 1992, 2005 (sort of) and 2012. Look at those points on the graph ... Let's face facts here: climate accords make NO difference, no matter how binding.

Can everybody who makes claims that worldwide accords, climate action, earth hour, ... everything that's been done in the last 40 years makes one iota of difference please explain why anybody would put in any amount of effort here ?

[matt4077]

Sure: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/bda7c7075...

The problem with CO_2 concentration is that it's a lagging indicator, and that any attempts to lower emissions has to fight against the increased use of energy as economies in Asia and Africa are catching up.

Politics is slow, and there are few mechanisms in international law to enforce treaties. But an international agreement can work, for example by giving politicians arguments ("We're required to do it, because we promised it", "We're not going to lose competitiveness, because everyone is doing it").

Thanks to subsidies, solar and wind power have become cheaper by several orders of magnitude and are now getting close to being competitive with fossil fuels, at least in some regions. Crossing that threshold would obviously be an inflection point.

[nickik]

> Thanks to subsidies, solar and wind power have become cheaper by several orders of magnitude

Subsidies have helped some to create more demand but the idea that they become better by orders of magnitude because of subsidies is absurd and totally against all economic logic.

Those things that had the best development are those things that are already useful anyway.

There are tons of things that got subsidies that never went anywhere.

[candiodari]

Is it lagging 18 years though ? I mean, be serious. Just stop.

And the only slight drop on that graph "just happens", I'm sure, to coincide near-perfectly with the 2008-2009 crisis.

[epmaybe]

There was a climate crisis in 2008-2009?