Because of current events, I’m seeing a lot of people who seem to think that without the leadership or participation of the United States, any effort to stem climate change is doomed.
I’d like to examine that assumption. Certainly the U.S. is important to such efforts, given its geopolitical power, size, and industry, but MUST it be an active and enthusiastic participant to save civilization as we know it?
Have you examined the assumption that the effort to fight climate change equates to “save civilization as we know it”? You might be better-served by starting there.
I’m merely referencing the core assumptions made by the “lot of people” I mention above.
I think what you propose is a bit of a side topic, with plenty of other threads (one started by you, in fact; I guess you weren’t persuaded).
I’ll attempt to refine OP’s question to head off the potential thread-derailment first reply.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, there’s some level of world-wide importance in achieving RCP 4.5, instead of the status-quo RCP 8.5.
How important is the U.S. contribution in achieving this particular goal?
In 2013, the United States was the second largest emitter of ‘greenhouse gases’ and by far the most populous nation in the upper ranks of per capita emissions. (Although China emitted about twice as much over all its per capita emissions are less than half that of the United States, although given the growing prosperity of the Chinese we can expect that to rise.) Virtually all European nations have half or less the per capita emissions. More importantly, the US is viewed as being a keystone partner in most intercontinental agreements and global actions. If the US steps away from the Paris Agreement, there is little motivations for other nations not to do the same, despite the fact that it will actually impact developing nations more quickly and with greater devastation than the US or China, although the ultimate economic and social impacts may be even greater on developed nations depending on the severity of droughts and other wide-ranging effects.
The world could go on without the United States, but it is unlikely to do so. Furthermore, as the forefront nation on development of new technologies for energy extraction, use, and efficiency (or, at least used to be) it is important that development of such technologies continues apace, to the benefit of all, and the promotion of investing in the upfront costs of sustainable energy and resource utilization infrastructure that will avoid scarcity crises in the future. In other words, we are supposed to be, and in the post-WWII and post-Cold War environment have viewed ourselves as the responsible stewards and grownups of the international community. We have an obligation to live up to that image, not only for the developing nations who look to the US (or else, will turn to nations like the China, Russia, or India for aid) but for ourselves.
Stranger
The point I was going to get at was that if all other countries are convinced that climate change means the end of the world as they know it, they probably don’t need the US’ leadership on the issue. If, however, they’re just sort of going along to get along, and the US quits prodding them on it, maybe it won’t get done. It wasn’t an attempt to derail the thread, but reading back over it now, I can see how it came across that way (my apologies). I like squidfood’s formulation a lot. How much would the rest of the world have to cut to meet RCP 4.5 if USA decided to forego cuts?
The US emits 15% of the global carbon emissions. If stopping global warming meant everyone cutting emissions by 20% and the US decided not to participate everyone else would have to cut emissions by 24% instead of 20%. So it seems definitely doable without the US.
Except that they’d then also have to limit exporting energy to America and/or impose a carbon tariff on stuff we export or else we could perform all the other countries’ “dirty work” as it were because their fossil fuels would be a lot cheaper. On the plus side there’d be more low-skilled manufacturing jobs…yay?
I posted about this a while back but I am not surprised it got lost in the noise.
On 9 November the UK’s House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union heard evidence from Greenpeace and the IPR about environmental matters. As an aside, the final question, from the Chairman (Lord Teverson) asked them about Trump’s impact on the Paris Agreement.
Surprisingly, the two witnesses were somewhat chipper about it:
So the US is a major part of the climate change battle, but if it sits on its hands at the federal level for a while, it won’t be entirely out of the fight in other aspects.
Do you know what % comes from California, or New York?
The US is necessary but not sufficient.
It is like a lot of other situations - if I drink the coffee in my office but don’t kick into the coffee fund, someone else has to pay more but I get to pay less. That is a best-case scenario for me - I get free coffee. Other people in the office have to try to prevent me from drinking the coffee without paying for it, which would probably work in the office but might not elsewhere. Or they could subsidize my coffee so I pay $.50 and everyone else pays $1.10. Or they could say “we need everyone to pony up or we won’t be able to have coffee at all, but nobody is willing to pay for you. You won’t be able to get coffee any cheaper so cough up”. Then I do a cost-benefit analysis of the risk that I can’t get coffee cheaper, and proceed based on that.
Maybe it is true that spending billions on converting my own economy to solar and wind, and billions more so other countries can convert to solar and wind, is worth the money in long-term savings in life and suffering and coastal floods. Or maybe it’s not, and it would be better to spend the billions on disaster recovery. Or maybe we should switch to nuclear and not waste money on [del]moon[/del]sunbeams.
Regards,
Shodan
Carbon emissions is a “tragedy of the commons” matter. Like littering, there’s little incentive to behave when most are misbehaving. The U.S.A. is a world leader in so many ways — both good ways and bad ways (the U.S. emits more CO2 than the E.U. and Japan combined) — that it would be very disheartening to other countries if the U.S. abandons its efforts to combat climate change. Yes, some foreign leaders might redouble their efforts to make up for U.S. shortcomings, but I think disillusionment and loss of enthusiasm would be the general sentiment.
The U.S. is (or was) the Exceptional Nation; the fact that OP can even ask this question shows how far we’ve quickly fallen off our pedestal, and how gloomy the prospects are for continued world respect. Eyes may turn to China for leadership.
Does “Exceptional Nation” now mean “F**k you; we’re too tough to care.”?
The US is viewed as the nation that has benefited the most from past resource extraction, utilization, and carbon emissions. It has built a prosperous economy and high standard of living through industrialization. Emerging economies like China and India, as well as developing third-world countries across the globe, feel that it is unfair that they be asked to eschew these benefits for the sake of global health when the US and other first world nations have already reaped the benefit. They feel that if a global agreement is to be reached, it is the US and other first world nations that should take the first steps and make the first sacrifices. If the US backs out of the Accords, other nations might be able to make up the difference, but they will feel no ethical obligation to do so. So the importance of US participation in climate accords goes well beyond its actual emissions (which are in fact considerable, as previously mentioned).
But even if Trump backs out of the accords, Americans aren’t forced to follow his “leadership”. Screw him. California just passed France to become the sixth largest economy in the world, and has been unilaterally and vigorously implementing climate emissions for some time. California Gov. Jerry Brown Signs New Climate Change Laws : The Two-Way : NPR That’s a big emission reduction right there. If other states, lesser jurisdictions, and individuals follow suit (as many are already doing), and effectively demonstrate to the world that they are doing so, than the damage of Trump’s idiocy could perhaps be limited.
I thought climate change was made up by the Chinese. Right?
6.6% of american emissions come from California and 3.13% come from New York. That means 1% of the worlds emissions come from California and .47% come from New York.
The United States has many brilliant engineers and entrepreneurs so it is likely that the US will vital in continuing to innovate and bring solutions to help human beings adapt to the climate. Climate deaths have plummeted because capitalism has brought relative prosperity to all levels in society. In 19th century Europe, for example, groups of vineyard workers would huddle together through the winter and hibernate because fossil fuel technology hadn’t been developed. The poorest of the poor now survive European winters.
There is a term for this kind of intentionally obtuse thinking–involving the relative proximity of cranium to anus and genitalia to grasping appendage–but not one that can be used in this forum.
Stranger
Is there a world in which that DOESN’T get you a warning? For heaven’s sake, circumlocutions don’t obviate the need to not insult other posters.
Is there a way to know how much carbon dioxide emissions will have to be cut in order to attain this goal?
There are so many economists and studies that continue to point out that it will be more expensive to adapt rather than control our emissions.
And this typically leads to the contrarian point that we should not do any changes today. It is a false dilemma because contrary to the propaganda that claims that more people are dying of the cold because of efforts to control emissions the reality is more complicated and the deaths nowadays usually related to health issues, bad insulation in homes and failures in helping the needy.