4 ms·

Underrated comment. While this shows how stupid it is to be radical in a country like Switzerland, it also implies a huge problem for the US to fulfill the Pari

Underrated comment. While this shows how stupid it is to be radical in a country like Switzerland, it also implies a huge problem for the US to fulfill the Paris goal. Switzerland (and to some degree the rest of Europe) have mostly only the hard parts left, while the US can significantly reduce emissions with relatively simple measures (e.g., building standards). But that only postpones the really difficult reductions to a point when there's no more time to negotiate. So it looks quite unlikely the US will be carbon neutral by 2050.

rsj_hn 5y ago
> it also implies a huge problem for the US to fulfill the Paris goal. There is simply no political consensus in the US to fulfill these goals, so it's not really a problem at all for most people. It's been strange how many people just assume that the climate debate is over and that they have convinced the population that serious efforts must be made. Then when this stuff is put to a vote, they are always shocked that people remain unconvinced. That usually results in some sort of tantrum being thrown about the world ending and how humanity will suffer untold grief, when most of the population remains unconvinced and is not willing to spend more than a dollar or so a month on this project. Of course the US isn't going to be carbon neutral by 2050. No country will. That is not even on the table for discussion as there is no support for that type of radical change.
- choeger 5y ago
  The EU has decided to be carbon neutral by 2050. That doesn't mean they will succeed, of course, but it's still somewhat bold to claim "no country will". Also the USA have reentered the Paris climate accords. So at least the current government commits to decarbonisation. I think there will be a significant problem for free trade when some nations put effort into decarbonisation and others do not and continue to use cheap energy. I do not, for instance, think that the EU will simply roll over and let relatively cheap US products flood the market when their own companies are not competitive anymore.

rsj_hn 5y ago

> it also implies a huge problem for the US to fulfill the Paris goal. There is simply no political consensus in the US to fulfill these goals, so it's not really a problem at all for most people. It's been strange how many people just assume that the climate debate is over and that they have convinced the population that serious efforts must be made. Then when this stuff is put to a vote, they are always shocked that people remain unconvinced. That usually results in some sort of tantrum being thrown about the world ending and how humanity will suffer untold grief, when most of the population remains unconvinced and is not willing to spend more than a dollar or so a month on this project. Of course the US isn't going to be carbon neutral by 2050. No country will. That is not even on the table for discussion as there is no support for that type of radical change.

choeger 5y ago
The EU has decided to be carbon neutral by 2050. That doesn't mean they will succeed, of course, but it's still somewhat bold to claim "no country will". Also the USA have reentered the Paris climate accords. So at least the current government commits to decarbonisation. I think there will be a significant problem for free trade when some nations put effort into decarbonisation and others do not and continue to use cheap energy. I do not, for instance, think that the EU will simply roll over and let relatively cheap US products flood the market when their own companies are not competitive anymore.