3 ms·

The US taking action puts international pressure on other nations to also take action. If the US ignored it and does not take action, other countries are less

The US taking action puts international pressure on other nations to also take action. If the US ignored it and does not take action, other countries are less likely to take action, because the U.S. is generally a leader on these things. It's kind of like asking "If the US stops pooping in the pool, what's to stop another kid from pooping in the pool?" Well those other kids are a hell of a lot more likely to poop in the pool if they see an international leader doing it. Also, by leading the way and showing how decerbonization is not only cheaper, but also healthier, other countries will be more likely to try to save money similarly. Most places that are installing coal these days are doing it because of local corruption. It's a lot easier to grift off a huge project than it is off of small distributed energy. Seeing that the US is moving away from coal will mean that corrupt local officials will have less excuse to pick outdated technology that lets them get bribed.

mlindner 4y ago
The US has been trending downward in emissions for some time now without the federal government having to mandate anything. Texas of all places is one of the fastest growing locations in the country for wind energy.
- epistasis 4y ago
  Exactly, decarbonization will save us tons of money as individuals and as a society. The probe is that many monied interests don't want to change their businesses to adapt. This is a separate issue from federal action. We take all sorts of actions with vast political and economic action that don't save money, to reduce pollution. But by leading the way, we will encourage other countries to not build coal plants, which was the "legitimate" question that was asked.
- redisman 4y ago
  Is it fast enough to stop a huge economic and biological burden hitting our children? It’s sad how short sighted the majority of people in the US is today. Small sacrifices could lead to hugely greater quality of life for everyone’s grand children but everyone is special and deserve everything they desire right now.
- diordiderot 4y ago
  It's called the California Effect. Higher standards in California mean companies default to that standard nation wide because it's easier to have a single product and avoid supply chain issues. Same reason most all orange juice is Kosher. A small but large enough hard preference controls the market because the rest dont care enough. Hopefully red states won't put an mpg cap out of spite
  - mlindner 4y ago
    No it's really not. Texas's energy grid is entirely independent and they produce a large percentage of the country's oil and gas. Also California has it's own specific blend of gasoline and that hasn't been adopted nationwide at all. It's only used in California. Texas produces around five times as much wind energy as California, and for half the price of California's wind energy. Unless you can identify a certain thing in California that caused Texas to increase it's wind power I think your argument is pretty vacuous.
uejfiweun 4y ago
This really doesn't seem like a very strong argument to me. How does the US undertaking an expensive effort to use less efficient energy sources in the name of the climate put any pressure on other countries? I don't think our being "generally a leader" is much of an incentive for China or India to voluntarily spend trillions to completely change their energy strategy.
- ragebol 4y ago
  Everyone knows it has to happen, one way or another. If the US can hide behind 'but China isn't reducing emissions' then so can China hide behind the US. etc. etc. And emissions per capita in China are still much lower than the US and of my native Netherlands, where the same argument is used.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    And in my mind emission per capita is only metric that is fair. And it should be calculated to include exports and imports thus transferring the emissions to where the goods produced are actually consumed.
    - ragebol 4y ago
      Yep. And given all those 'Made in China' labels, it's a big exporter too, transferring more CO2 to consumers. The picture does not become better looking for (us) Westerners
      - epistasis 4y ago
        This is not very true if you look at the numbers. Manufacturing stuff is a pretty tiny proportion of emissions, and even if you shift all of China's manufacturing emissions back to the countries that import, it's barer a blip. I ran the numbers a few years ago to see what personal actions I could take. (Even though climate change is a collective action problem, not a personal action problem.) In the US, stopping buying so much stuff isn't much of a climate action, at least not nearly as much as switching off driving a gas car, changing your natural gas water heater to electric, ir changing a natural gas furnace to a heat pump.

mlindner 4y ago

The US has been trending downward in emissions for some time now without the federal government having to mandate anything. Texas of all places is one of the fastest growing locations in the country for wind energy.

epistasis 4y ago
Exactly, decarbonization will save us tons of money as individuals and as a society. The probe is that many monied interests don't want to change their businesses to adapt. This is a separate issue from federal action. We take all sorts of actions with vast political and economic action that don't save money, to reduce pollution. But by leading the way, we will encourage other countries to not build coal plants, which was the "legitimate" question that was asked.
redisman 4y ago
Is it fast enough to stop a huge economic and biological burden hitting our children? It’s sad how short sighted the majority of people in the US is today. Small sacrifices could lead to hugely greater quality of life for everyone’s grand children but everyone is special and deserve everything they desire right now.
diordiderot 4y ago
It's called the California Effect. Higher standards in California mean companies default to that standard nation wide because it's easier to have a single product and avoid supply chain issues. Same reason most all orange juice is Kosher. A small but large enough hard preference controls the market because the rest dont care enough. Hopefully red states won't put an mpg cap out of spite
- mlindner 4y ago
  No it's really not. Texas's energy grid is entirely independent and they produce a large percentage of the country's oil and gas. Also California has it's own specific blend of gasoline and that hasn't been adopted nationwide at all. It's only used in California. Texas produces around five times as much wind energy as California, and for half the price of California's wind energy. Unless you can identify a certain thing in California that caused Texas to increase it's wind power I think your argument is pretty vacuous.

uejfiweun 4y ago

This really doesn't seem like a very strong argument to me. How does the US undertaking an expensive effort to use less efficient energy sources in the name of the climate put any pressure on other countries? I don't think our being "generally a leader" is much of an incentive for China or India to voluntarily spend trillions to completely change their energy strategy.

ragebol 4y ago
Everyone knows it has to happen, one way or another. If the US can hide behind 'but China isn't reducing emissions' then so can China hide behind the US. etc. etc. And emissions per capita in China are still much lower than the US and of my native Netherlands, where the same argument is used.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  And in my mind emission per capita is only metric that is fair. And it should be calculated to include exports and imports thus transferring the emissions to where the goods produced are actually consumed.
  - ragebol 4y ago
    Yep. And given all those 'Made in China' labels, it's a big exporter too, transferring more CO2 to consumers. The picture does not become better looking for (us) Westerners
    - epistasis 4y ago
      This is not very true if you look at the numbers. Manufacturing stuff is a pretty tiny proportion of emissions, and even if you shift all of China's manufacturing emissions back to the countries that import, it's barer a blip. I ran the numbers a few years ago to see what personal actions I could take. (Even though climate change is a collective action problem, not a personal action problem.) In the US, stopping buying so much stuff isn't much of a climate action, at least not nearly as much as switching off driving a gas car, changing your natural gas water heater to electric, ir changing a natural gas furnace to a heat pump.