
All Nations Except U.S. Agree on Climate Accord at G-20 - doener
http://www.thedailybeast.com/all-nations-except-us-agree-on-climate-accord-at-g-20
======
a-zA-Z
As a US citizen I find this incredibly bleak, but I hope the rest of the world
pushes forward. I imagine at some point the US will try to get back on board.

------
diogenescynic
As an American, our country has become an embarrassment.

------
jitl
How did the U.S. go from world leader to world laggard?

~~~
ruffrey
Gerrymandering, and the Citizens United supreme Court decision that let
corporations contribute unlimited amounts of money to politicians.

~~~
scarface74
I don't think either explain Trump's election. For the most part, corporations
didn't back Trump and gerrymandering with in states doesn't have any affect on
the presidential election.

Trump won because of the electoral college, a weak Democratic candidate, and
because Trump unlike most mainstream Republican Presidential candidates
pandered to people's baser instincts.

~~~
kabdib
Gerrymandering has had a huge effect. I highly recommend reading _Ratf--cked_,
it'll probably make you angry though.

~~~
scarface74
Gerrymandering affects Senate and House races. Electoral votes for president
are based on the entire state's population. How could gerrymandering affect
the Presidential election?

------
seizethecheese
First of all, this is extremely light on information, barely a paragraph.

Also, this is a completely non-binding, symbolic accord. Pure politics, only
important for signaling value.

~~~
orf
Then it should be effortless to agree to it.

But that would upset a portion of Trumps support base as well as his parties
donors, which want to keep perpetuating the myth that climate change isn't
real for as long as possible.

~~~
iiiggglll
That cuts both ways. Signing it would have made a lot of people feel good
without actually doing anything.

All the accords and agreements in the world will do nothing to help get us out
of this mess. There is only one thing that will save us: technology. Clean
energy sources, clean storage, more efficient use, etc. And it has to have a
lower price across the board than what we already have, in order to ensure
adoption. It also has to work just as well or better than what we already
have, or no one will use it.

Nothing else will help, because no matter what pieces of paper are signed,
people _will not_ give up their lifestyles and they _will not_ pay more for
what they perceive as the same thing. They will continue to drive cars, fly,
eat meat, and so on. And those around the world who are not already living
that kind of lifestyle are working as hard as they possibly can to get there.
The only thing that will be palatable is to give people things that they
perceive as being just as good (or better), with the same or lower price tag.
Nothing else will work.

Need an example? Just look at CFCs. Did the world stop using them because
everyone cared about ozone? That's what everyone said at the time, but in
reality the change only happened because there was an alternative that didn't
come with a higher price tag and didn't have any significant disadvantages. We
got lucky. If the alternative had cost even a tiny fraction of a penny more
per unit, or not worked every bit as well as CFCs, industries across the world
would have spent untold sums of money lobbying against it, calling ozone
depletion a myth, and so on, just like we are seeing today with climate
change.

If you truly care about climate change, you'll stop worrying about political
agreements and start working on clean technology. Nothing else will work.

~~~
zzalpha
Not sure why the downvoting. This may come across as cynical but it's also
realistic.

Climate change reminds me a lot of dieting. People say they want to do
something about it, but in reality they don't truly want it because they can't
tolerate the sacrifices required.

So we speak in aspirational tones: "I really _should_ lose some weight", "I
_should_ eat better", "I _should_ exercise more", and then we turn around and
go back to doing the same things as before.

Only with climate change we're fighting that at the _societal_ level.

The only solution is to correct incentives. Ideally that would mean: tax bad
behaviour, subsidize good behaviour, and eliminate barriers to change.

But of those, only the last is possible, because the first two require
government action that no one actually wants to take because, again, people
_aspire_ to thwart climate change but don't actually want to make the
necessary sacrifices to do anything about it.

And that last option, eliminating barriers, comes down to technology by making
it cheaper and easier to not dump CO2 into the atmosphere.

------
mistersquid
A sad day for US Science, a sad day for the world.

EDIT: Add second phrase.

