Won't work. Climate change mitigation is like international relations in general - any solutions have to be feasible in a state of international anarchy (i.e.,

Won't work. Climate change mitigation is like international relations in general - any solutions have to be feasible in a state of international anarchy (i.e., no central regulator). Strong powers like the US can sometimes influence or pressure other nations on issues like this. However, the US's power and influence is on the decline. They might have been able to do this in the 1990s, but that was too early for solar panels, good batteries, and other technology that really let us think about a carbon-free future in earnest (a special fuck you to the environmental activists that scuttled nuclear). There's a reason everyone was eager to sign the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 - with the US not part of it, no one had to worry about enforcement, so it was cheap virtue signaling. Now, the US has blown its moral and military credibility with Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya. Ukraine isn't quite the disaster of those yet - mostly because people largely accept that Russia performed a preemptive invasion and Ukraine obviously wants to fight - but the US and its allies blew their one chance to do large-scale sanction warfare with the dollar, and Russia is still not out of the war. So any decarbonization now has to happen strictly out of each country's self-interest. We are blessed in that renewable energy looks like it's going to be cost effective (albeit not enough for people to shut down existing fossil fuel plants, just to avoid building new ones) - the US and its allies don't make up a large enough portion of world consumption for their decarbonization to be enough, even if they could eliminate emissions from non-energy sources, which are substantial.