6 ms·

There are, but it requires sustained international cooperation at a level rarely (if ever) seen. The arbitrary flip-flopping of US policy regarding climate chan

There are, but it requires sustained international cooperation at a level rarely (if ever) seen. The arbitrary flip-flopping of US policy regarding climate change mitigation isn't helping. The closest we have come to such a feat would be outlawing of some ozone depleting chemicals 2 decades ago. It's highly unlikely we will be able to accomplish this. Any sustained international response will undoubtedly be reactionary instead of proactive.

ForHackernews 8y ago
We're already well past the point of "proactive" responses. Everything since 400 ppm is firmly in the realm of reactionary attempts to contain and cope with the damage.
golemiprague 8y ago
US is not the problem, it is all those developing countries, the US is doing better than most other countries and in practice there is no "flipflopping". There is a balance between economy and measurements that need to be taken and it is not entirely clear that making people poorer for a small immediate gain is always the right policy. See what happen now in France regarding diesel prices. Rich countries take better care of the environment, sometimes it is better to invest in making the country rich rather than a tax on diesel fuel.
- ForHackernews 8y ago
  I vouched for the above [dead] comment so people can see what we're up against here. > sometimes it is better to invest in making the country rich rather than a tax on diesel fuel. There are many people who sincerely believe it's better to get rich even if their grandchildren (and the children of others around the world) will ultimately suffer to pay for their cheap diesel. How much could I pay you to kill the white rhino, golemiprague?
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    The comment has been flagged and killed again. I doubt it will ever be revived.
  - kevinskii 8y ago
    The comment reasonably suggested that wealthier countries tend to be better stewards of the environment. This isn't at all like saying that we should plunder the environment for profit, and it takes quite a logical leap to misread it that way. (Edit: Removed reference to flag killing, as it's not clear that's what actually happened.)
    - eigenstuff 8y ago
      Ah, yes, because the Hutus and Tutsis are trashing the environment with all the single use plastics in all the TV dinners they eat and with their big ol honkin gas guzzling SUVs. Lol what? You realize that the Amazon rainforest gets cut down to make room for growing more future McDonald's hamburger patties, right? And that southeast Asian rainforests are being destroyed to make palm oil for Cadbury eggs? Did you forget about how big a deal it was when China decided it was going to stop importing our garbage? First world countries are "better environmental stewards" simply because we exported the environmental damage our consumerist lifestyles generate off to poorer countries with less infrastructure and regulatory oversight. We're not better, we just made it their problem to deal with and are destroying their backyards instead of ours. At the end of the day, we're still the real problem. This notion that they're more of a problem than we are is p much just victim blaming imo.

ForHackernews 8y ago

We're already well past the point of "proactive" responses. Everything since 400 ppm is firmly in the realm of reactionary attempts to contain and cope with the damage.

golemiprague 8y ago

US is not the problem, it is all those developing countries, the US is doing better than most other countries and in practice there is no "flipflopping". There is a balance between economy and measurements that need to be taken and it is not entirely clear that making people poorer for a small immediate gain is always the right policy. See what happen now in France regarding diesel prices. Rich countries take better care of the environment, sometimes it is better to invest in making the country rich rather than a tax on diesel fuel.

ForHackernews 8y ago
I vouched for the above [dead] comment so people can see what we're up against here. > sometimes it is better to invest in making the country rich rather than a tax on diesel fuel. There are many people who sincerely believe it's better to get rich even if their grandchildren (and the children of others around the world) will ultimately suffer to pay for their cheap diesel. How much could I pay you to kill the white rhino, golemiprague?
- saagarjha 8y ago
  The comment has been flagged and killed again. I doubt it will ever be revived.
- kevinskii 8y ago
  The comment reasonably suggested that wealthier countries tend to be better stewards of the environment. This isn't at all like saying that we should plunder the environment for profit, and it takes quite a logical leap to misread it that way. (Edit: Removed reference to flag killing, as it's not clear that's what actually happened.)
  - eigenstuff 8y ago
    Ah, yes, because the Hutus and Tutsis are trashing the environment with all the single use plastics in all the TV dinners they eat and with their big ol honkin gas guzzling SUVs. Lol what? You realize that the Amazon rainforest gets cut down to make room for growing more future McDonald's hamburger patties, right? And that southeast Asian rainforests are being destroyed to make palm oil for Cadbury eggs? Did you forget about how big a deal it was when China decided it was going to stop importing our garbage? First world countries are "better environmental stewards" simply because we exported the environmental damage our consumerist lifestyles generate off to poorer countries with less infrastructure and regulatory oversight. We're not better, we just made it their problem to deal with and are destroying their backyards instead of ours. At the end of the day, we're still the real problem. This notion that they're more of a problem than we are is p much just victim blaming imo.