[epistasis]

I think that the banng of HFCs is a pretty good example of collective action.

Also, it's important to realize that climate change, as we best understand it right now, is not a "or perish" type of situation. RCP8.5 has now been soundly eliminated from the set of potential climate trajectories, so what we're left with is a question of 1) how much mass migration will be forced upon the world, with concomitant wars and social strife, and 2) how much economic loss results from that, as well as from lost opportunity by not adopting cheaper renewable energy routes.

Technological innovation has done something absolutely remarkable: the future with the cheapest and most abundant energy is the one that switches to renewable energy and storage the fastest. Every day we delay, not only do we end up with a worse climate outcome, but we also just light money on fire, with worse economic efficiency. And in economies built on the continual compounding interest of technological advancement, we subject humanity to far greater poverty for every day we delay the transition.

Most of the world will benefit from this technological change happening quickly. There will be some outliers, like the US, that choose to be poorer and less influential by actively subverting renewable energy in the marketplace (the Trump administration has done a huge amount of economic damage in only a small amount of time), but the US will come around. Texas is leading the way, because they are actually market driven more than they are politically driven, but the rest of the US is kind of screwed on that front for a while.

[glitchc]

No matter how poor you think the US is, the average person in the rest of the world is indeed poorer.

[epistasis]

I'm not understanding how this observation relates to my comment, in any way.

Renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels. The areas that are just developing widespread electricity now will do it far cleaner than the US did, skipping the lower development stages of electricity and jumping directly into the future, if that's what you're saying. But I'm having trouble understanding what you mean.

[harimau777]

The average person in the rest of the world lives in a dramatically different social structure than Western late stage capitalism. In effect the social contract of capitalism was "give up the culture, social institutions, etc. that make for a stable collectivist society and in exchange enjoy the benefits of consumerism." I don't think it is surprising that people are angry when the Capital class decides that they don't get the consumerism either.

[anonymousiam]

True, but most people don't think about why that is the case. They'll blame slavery (abolished over 160 years ago), or the "exploitation" by capitalists (that produce wealth for all). Some may claim that the US has more natural resources, but The US is rich because of the freedoms and rights that our citizens have. Look at the poverty of the Soviet Union or Mao's China, or in Cuba today.

I cannot for the life of me understand the increasing popularity of socialism and communism in the US today. Those forms of government have a proven track record of failure.

[t0mpr1c3]

Let's consider the economies of Communist nations. I suggest we take into account a bit of regional history.

North Korea is a basket case. But after three generations of tyrants it is arguably a monarchy.

China is a success story, end of. By any measure, China has come a long way since the Communist regime took over in 1949.

You could say something similar about Soviet Russia. By the 1980s it had stagnated, but the average Russian was incomparably better off than in 1917.

How far have Russians come since then? Has capitalism ushered in a golden age of prosperity and well-being? Here's a clue: life expectancy peaked in 1986. Russians lived longer 40 years ago, under Communism, than they do today.

Vietnam has done reasonably well since other countries stopped invading it.

American foreign policy hasn't done much for Cubans, either. Especially in the last few months.

Perhaps we should finally let go of the cold war mindset. It's imperial thinking, and we can't afford it. US power is fading fast.

Castro and Ho Chi Minh will go down in (our) history as Communist revolutionaries, but they weren't fighting against capitalism. They succeeded by uniting their people against colonial rule.

The USA was the colonial power that Castro was fighting, of course.

At least we no longer think of Nelson Mandela as a Communist and a terrorist. The US state department finally acknowledged as much in 2008, nearly 10 years after he had retired as president of RSA.

[anonymousiam]

Note that I referred to Mao Zedong's China and not the China of today, which has embraced a "controlled capitalism" after their flirtation with communism failed miserably (as it always does).

Can you trust the USSR lifespan statistics? I wouldn't.

You cite other countries, none of which are under a purely communist government, because that has never worked out for anyone other than the dictators that ruled them.

[t0mpr1c3]

I don't think statistics are the issue, or what the exact definition of a communist is. For what it's worth, self-described communists are still in charge in all of the countries I mentioned, with the obvious exception of Soviet Russia.

Let's step back for a moment. I think you should acknowledge that you have constructed a world in your head where communists do battle with capitalists, and capitalists are the good guys.

That idea is outdated and increasingly ridiculous. Clearly it is a narrative that serves the interests of billionaires in West Palm Beach. I don't know that working people buy it. It wasn't communists who put them on a zero hours contract.

[anonymousiam]

I do not see it as a battle or war. I pity the poor subjects of every totalitarian regime, and at the same time I feel blessed to live where I do. No system is perfect, and most of the people of the world live in fear of their government (including many in the USA).

The USA is rich for a reason, and that reason is the freedoms that this system of government allows. The likely outcome of any US shift toward socialism or communism is the destruction of wealth. We are seeing it happen today in places like California and New York City. Both places have recently moved toward socialism and they are now less desirable places to live than they once were. By any index, the quality of live in those places is worse today than it was 10 years ago.

[harimau777]

Socialism is increasingly popular because people are seeing that capitalism makes them LESS free. People don't have the freedom to own a home, the freedom to get medical care, the freedom to travel, etc. When they see that many of those things (particularly medical care) are available in socialist (relative to the US) countries, it's no surprise that they abandon capitalism.