>If you expect coordinated global action from some kind of global conductor I really invite you to look at the literature "I lost my keys in the dark, but I'm

>If you expect coordinated global action from some kind of global conductor I really invite you to look at the literature "I lost my keys in the dark, but I'm looking under the streetlight because that's where the light is". I don't understand the frame of mind where you keep arguing about how you don't have a flashlight, I don't have a flashlight, we can't possibly wait until morning, etc. If you can't solve a problem, swapping it for some arbitrary thing you can solve is pointless. Saying "it has to work" is the sort of thing people say in the movies. Something "has" to work because the script writer decided on it. Coordinated global action may in fact be impossible. Some people think an effective world government would be a fate worse than unrestricted emissions. I'm just saying it's the solution by definition. Again, because that's what "global" means. >It has to work more like slavery, colonialism and chemical weapons I don't know what I can say for a third time that I didn't say the first two and I feel like you are ignoring. These are all things that compose like my analogy of painting things blue. If the people in a family did bad stuff, then their family did; if the families in a country did, then the country did, etc. They are not things that compose via the summation of numbers corresponding to their parts. You don't add up a measure of colonialism produced with a measure of colonialism consumed elsewhere. There is no target threshold for colonialism or slavery or chemical weapons. Not to mention, from what I read, all three things are very widespread to this day, so if they were like carbon dioxide emissions, it would be a pretty pessimistic sign anyway.