[UkrainianJew]

Unpopular opinion: any reasonable policies and restrictions are always compromises between the 2 polar opposite extremes. For example, killing all humans on Earth would completely stop climate change, but the price is unreasonably high. As the opposite extreme, reducing food waste hardly has any disadvantages, but is not sufficient on its own to stop the warming.

Compromises are found iteratively - moving the lever too far creates pressure on the opposing side, and the regulation changes back.

Globalization eliminated the feedback loop. Each time the West hardens environmental standards, a some "dirty" production just moves to less developed countries, along with the jobs, knowledge and culture for achieving things. That CO2 is still emitted overseas, but we conveniently turn a blind eye to it, arguing whether we should have shorter showers or ban plastic straws. Now it's biting us hard, since it turned out those countries have much less political stability, so as the shit finally hit the fan, we suddenly have a shortage of everything.

Maybe, just maybe, having the emissions managed on the state level will let different states explore different potential trade-offs between being green and being dysfunctional, and we can hopefully find a better compromise that takes a more complete picture into consideration.

[jdpigeon]

That's an interesting argument. My counter for globalization is that it leads to developed countries taking the lead in policy decisions for other countries around the world. One example is the US controlled substances act being copied nearly identically around the world. It's possible that if the US hadn't passed that law, most countries would have had legal pot throughout the 20th century.

I'm afraid that the supreme court stifling the ability of the US to legislate against carbon emissions is going to slow down the entire world who has been looking to the US as an example on what to do.

[woodruffw]

> Unpopular opinion: any reasonable policies and restrictions are always compromises between the 2 polar opposite extremes.

King Solomon, is that you[1]?

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgement_of_Solomon

[redisman]

Letting states choose how they hit their CO2 allotment is totally fine as long as there is a universal per capita CO2 goal for the whole country. If there is no cap then self serving states will simply emit as much as is maximally profitable