[rob74]

> When entire countries fail to confront serious challenges, it doesn't end well.

At least in the case of global warming, the US are in good company: the whole world is failing (some more, some less, but nevertheless all failing) to confront the challenge.

[peeters]

The only flaw in that line of thinking is that the US bears some responsibility in this. As long as the world's biggest powers are willing to exploit the situation, pretending it's a zero-sum game, the smaller powers can't do much. If the US showed true leadership on carbon emissions, it would bring much of the world with it.

[toomuchtodo]

China generates more power from renewables than Europe. Europe has finally gotten some will to get off gas because Putin forced their hand. The US could get their shit together: 80% of US coal plants are uneconomical to continue to run versus firm renewables, EVs are 3-5 times cheaper per mile to operate than a combustion vehicle. $40 trillion dollars of investment capital, greater than the GDP of the US, has divested from fossil fuels. A majority of Americans believe in climate change and support strong government efforts to mitigate it (my citations from another thread below).

But, you’ve got this coalition of entrenched interests and corrupt politicians who are fighting it. So the death gasps continue. Kudos to capitalism in this regard, it will accelerate the transition regardless as renewables and electric mobility learning curves bend adoption and deployment curves closer to vertical.

https://archive.ph/2022.06.30-103521/https://www.bloomberg.c...

https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/eu-slashes-fossi...

https://insight.factset.com/strong-ev-sales-could-soon-weigh...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31960997

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31961227

[gedy]

I like to think of it as there are no borders in the atmosphere (nor 'per capita').

[Sharlin]

There are no borders in any commons by definition; that's exactly the tragedy of commons.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

both clauses above are false.

There are plenty of commons that come with borders, the most trivial of which would be a patch of land used for grazing livestock.

Garrett Hardin himself has acknowledged that he made a mistake with the concept of "the tragedy of the commons". There is no such thing. Commons have all historically been carefully managed by a complex interlocking web of understandings, traditions, rules. The so-called tragedies correspond to (essentially in every case) powerful interests ignoring or overthrowing the management structures governing a commons to pursue their own self-interest.

[Sharlin]

What I meant was, obviously, that commons are not internally divided, otherwise they would not be commons.

Yes, commons have historically been managed, or should I say coordinated [1], more or less explicitly, exactly so as to avoid the tragedy of unmanaged commons. The environmental awakening in the 20th century was a response to several tragedies of commons hitherto unmanaged, and these tragedies were partially mitigated by nation state level coordination. A couple of decades later humanity succeeded in solving the first truly global tragedy of commons in the history, the depletion of the ozone layer. But that was a relatively easy problem to solve compared to carbon emissions.

[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

[zaptheimpaler]

WTF? Every country failing to act on an impending crisis is not good news, it's worse.

Nature does not dole out milder climates to countries which pollute less either. We're all in the same boat.

[wizofaus]

Are you assuming the phrase "good company" is suggesting there's something praiseworthy about such a situation? It's just a figure of speech...

[zaptheimpaler]

Yeah, that is how I read it. Maybe not praiseworthy but at least as a sort of "well everybody does it so it must be ok" moral stance. Whereas climate change is an objective claim about nature as opposed to a moral imperative.

[wizofaus]

Cambridge specifically defines it as "to have the same problem as many other people", whereas US dictionaries tend to go with definitions suggesting the other people are "respected" or noteworthy, so perhaps it's a dialectical difference (I'm accustomed to both interpretations but assumed the former in this case).

[edmcnulty101]

We're just exiting an ice age. The world is currently one of the coolest times its ever been.

[dlnovell]

This is an excellent demonstration of the denial that Romney is pointing out

[edmcnulty101]

you can downvote me but it's science.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hotte...

[wizofaus]

If the scariest thing in that graph of the earth's estimated global temperature over its lifetime isn't the near vertical upward line at the end it just means you don't believe humanity's existence is particularly significant (which is not an unreasonable conclusion depending on your perspective). The planet and life in general will thrive no matter what we do. I'd just rather we actually give ourselves a shot of being around a little longer to witness it.

[edmcnulty101]

Humans are going to be fine too even if the sea levels rise. Humans adapt that's our biggest strength.

[wizofaus]

Sea level rises aren't our biggest problem. I'm willing to be a very significant percentage of humanity are not going to be "fine" at all, barring some miraculous changes in our behavior and/or technology. Would you have claimed humans have coped "fine" with covid? I wouldn't, and I reckon that'll be statistical noise compared to the likely disruptions in the next 50-100 years.

[edmcnulty101]

> Would you have claimed humans have coped "fine" with covid?

I hear you. Are you still wearing a mask to protect other people? COVID is still out there. We have to protect people from COVID so please wear a mask and only go outside if necessary. This is still a pandemic.