4 ms·

> We need a huge collaboration of countries. Go ahead we are listening. Who would you go about coordinating and enforcing 'huge collaboration of countries'? A

> We need a huge collaboration of countries. Go ahead we are listening. Who would you go about coordinating and enforcing 'huge collaboration of countries'? All i remember is world leaders coming together, year after year - shake hands, thump their chest expressing how sorrowful they feel, give great speeches how everything will change - and then nothing changes.

dathinab 5y ago
There being a need for something and it happening are two fundamental different thinks. Just because it doesn't happen doesn't mean there is not need for it. The Bering Strait Dam btw. would have required a higher degree of collaboration then is needed to limit climate change. Sure a few less countries would be involved be the involved countries still would need a much deeper level of collaboration which given that it's effect would have been rather negative for many of the cost countries it would have been rather hard to archive any agreement.
codingdave 5y ago
Except that isn't how it has gone - we had 4 years where the US did not sit down and agree, and actually went backwards on climate agreements. This year, the world leadership has come back together for the first time in years. I don't want to go down a political rabbit hole here, but we should at least get the facts straight.
- bumby 5y ago
  To both points, how would the political risk that looms on the horizon every 4 years be mitigated? It’s tough to see a long term solution that isn’t constantly at risk of being reversed when a new camp rides into town. Maybe some govt orgs like NASA who’ve been dealing with this for decades can shed some light
  - SteveNuts 5y ago
    Constitutional amendments come to mind, but I feel like that would be difficult to pull off at this point
  - nradov 5y ago
    In the US at least, a fully ratified international treaty would be a fairly effective mitigation. Those have force of law second only to the Constitution. Any single President could somewhat obstruct implementing such a treaty but wouldn't be able to stop it completely.

dathinab 5y ago

There being a need for something and it happening are two fundamental different thinks. Just because it doesn't happen doesn't mean there is not need for it. The Bering Strait Dam btw. would have required a higher degree of collaboration then is needed to limit climate change. Sure a few less countries would be involved be the involved countries still would need a much deeper level of collaboration which given that it's effect would have been rather negative for many of the cost countries it would have been rather hard to archive any agreement.

codingdave 5y ago

Except that isn't how it has gone - we had 4 years where the US did not sit down and agree, and actually went backwards on climate agreements. This year, the world leadership has come back together for the first time in years. I don't want to go down a political rabbit hole here, but we should at least get the facts straight.

bumby 5y ago
To both points, how would the political risk that looms on the horizon every 4 years be mitigated? It’s tough to see a long term solution that isn’t constantly at risk of being reversed when a new camp rides into town. Maybe some govt orgs like NASA who’ve been dealing with this for decades can shed some light
- SteveNuts 5y ago
  Constitutional amendments come to mind, but I feel like that would be difficult to pull off at this point
- nradov 5y ago
  In the US at least, a fully ratified international treaty would be a fairly effective mitigation. Those have force of law second only to the Constitution. Any single President could somewhat obstruct implementing such a treaty but wouldn't be able to stop it completely.