[savingsPossible]

This is a coordination problem.

A problem in which everyone is supposed to suffer a little to prevent greater collective suffering in the future.

It has one important characteristic: everyone would rather not suffer and let some else suffer. When problems are like that, there is need for coordination, for people to agree on what is a fair amount of suffering for each actor.

I happen to agree that CO2 per capita is a much better measure of what is fair, especially when comparing the US and China, both countries that are growing very little in population

[lotsofpulp]

Another important characteristic is that one tribe has already enjoyed (and continues to enjoy) significant quality of life enhancements due to much higher consumption of fossil fuel per capita.

Politically, you’re simply not going to get anywhere with asking everyone to suffer “a little”.

Also, the whole detached single family house with 2 car garage on quarter acre lot has to go, but Americans are not going to give it up, and other countries’ people aspiring for it are certainly not going to give it up.

[savingsPossible]

Yep...

Those comments about some economies going carbon negative are making more sense when you see it as a coordination problem with the fairness issue.

Its like, China should grow its carbon consumption by no more than X, and we will go 0 and capture. That is quite possibly a fair way, and still cooperation from all the parties