Maybe so. So let's forego his metaphor, and say instead that climate change puts us in a prisoner's dilemma. Maybe it's the same 90 companies polluting, and cle

Maybe so. So let's forego his metaphor, and say instead that climate change puts us in a prisoner's dilemma. Maybe it's the same 90 companies polluting, and clearly they've contributed to the structural choices in our lives to be theirs, but what's the way out? Barring further structural changes, one will gain little and just lose by giving up their car, their electricity utility, the chemicals they use for cleaning, the metals and plastics and synthetics they use for durability and convenience. Some people do this for a moral boost, but usually because they can afford to do so. Movements of people will have to band together to bring about change through one of the usual methods: innovation (by making additional choices available), regulation (by restricting certain choices), or revolution (by throwing out the existing playbook, and assuming all the risks of doing so). Yet despite international coordination about climate change, the some of the largest contributing countries are refusing to participate to protect their own interests. The US, which hasn't ratified the Kyoto treaty, ostensibly because they feel it gives certain other large developing, high-polluting countries a pass, but perhaps to protect its energy industry. Canada, a very advanced country built on an extraction economy, withdrew from the Kyoto treaty, citing economic reasons. Australia, another extraction economy, ratified the Kyoto treaty but made little progress on their mandatory commitments. In this world, if you're not the US, Canada, Australia, and neither are you India, China, Indonesia, etc. what should you do? Curb your own contributions to harmful externalities because it's the right thing to do, even though people in countries who may live better than you do don't have to, and people in very large developing countries won't out-pollute your per capita, but by virtue of their population will out-pollute you in absolute numbers eight, ten times over? It's a very hard sell. The innovation of the international cooperation about climate change is emissions trading: allowing the offsetting of pollution to be an economic good, and fit neatly into the global economic system. This creates new opportunities and incentives where there weren't many good ones before. But even so, it's discouraging that so many people (represented by their countries) have chosen to go their own way, and leave the rest of the world having to deal with their waste.