# How vital is the United States in the fight against climate change? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 30, 2016, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-vital-is-the-united-states-in-the-fight-against-climate-change/773493 "2016-11-30T22:13:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2016, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-vital-is-the-united-states-in-the-fight-against-climate-change/773493/1 "2016-11-30T22:13:52Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2016, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-vital-is-the-united-states-in-the-fight-against-climate-change/773493/2 "2016-11-30T23:27:52Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2016, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-vital-is-the-united-states-in-the-fight-against-climate-change/773493/3 "2016-11-30T23:36:33Z")
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). ---
**Author:** ![squidfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a87d85/32.png) [@squidfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squidfood)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2016, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-vital-is-the-united-states-in-the-fight-against-climate-change/773493/4 "2016-11-30T23:37:56Z")
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathways), instead of the status-quo RCP 8.5. How important is the U.S. contribution in achieving this particular goal? ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2016, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-vital-is-the-united-states-in-the-fight-against-climate-change/773493/5 "2016-11-30T23:40:26Z")
In 2013, the United States was [the second largest emitter of ‘greenhouse gases’](http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2013.tot) and by far [the most populous nation in the upper ranks of per capita emissions](http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2013.cap). (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 ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2016, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-vital-is-the-united-states-in-the-fight-against-climate-change/773493/6 "2016-11-30T23:49:08Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > 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). 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? ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2016, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-vital-is-the-united-states-in-the-fight-against-climate-change/773493/7 "2016-12-01T16:01:34Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2016, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-vital-is-the-united-states-in-the-fight-against-climate-change/773493/8 "2016-12-01T16:20:44Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2016, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-vital-is-the-united-states-in-the-fight-against-climate-change/773493/9 "2016-12-01T16:22:27Z")
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](http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/eu-energy-and-environment-subcommittee/brexit-environment-and-climate-change/oral/43267.html): > [@](#): > > **Michael Jacobs:** There is no question about that, unless he completely changes his views on climate change, which he might do; we do not really know how much of this was just campaign rhetoric, but he is pretty much on record as a climate change denier. He has said he would support the American coal industry, which is on its way out, as indeed is the coal industry in most parts of the world now—coal-fired power stations and so on—and that he would rip up the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement was very cleverly designed. The international community is not stupid. There is a four-year withdrawal period after a country notifies that it might wish to withdraw, which clearly takes you beyond one presidential term, and that is not a coincidence. > > My general judgment is it would be very bad—it is very bad—for the general global movement towards reducing emissions and climate change, which received this huge boost in Paris, where finally the world came together around very serious long-term goals for all countries. That has been reinforced by the very rapid transition into international law this year, within a year, the HFCs treaty, the fact that the International Civil Aviation Organization now has a climate policy and so on. There has been a lot of progress, and all of that is without question challenged and put at risk by the election of an American President who does not believe in it, does not want to act and is tearing up American domestic law. > > It does not stop it all happening. America will remain part of the Paris Agreement until it formally withdraws, and although American policy will change, a lot of American policy is driven by the states and it is driven by the economy. The reason why Texas is putting in lots of wind power is not that President Obama wants to do climate policy; it is because wind power is cheap, and it is defeating coal and oil on the grid, with some tax credit subsidies but basically without subsidy, and that is happening all over the US. Solar power and wind power are powering ahead in the US, as in the rest of the world, and presidential decree does not change that. > > There is no question but that it is very bad, but we should not regard this as the end of climate policy in the US, let alone internationally. The reason why countries are all embarked on the decarbonisation process, slower or faster, is that it is good for the economy, it is good for air quality and so on and so forth. This now has a momentum which is economic and cultural, not just political, and certainly not just driven by an international treaty. > > That was my general point about President Trump. In answer to your specific question, I think it will force progressive countries together on this. This will incentivise the EU to remain very close to the UK, assuming the UK remains a climate leader, and there is no reason to think the new Prime Minister is not as much as previous ones have been. I think the same will be true with Norway, with Switzerland and with other countries. The so-called high ambition alliance, which was the driving force of the Paris Agreement—it was an alliance of European countries, some other developed countries, including the US, the least developed countries, the islands, and so on—I think will be reinforced by this, and those are the vast majority of countries. China is doing this for its own reasons and so on. This will reinforce international co-operation among all those countries that want to continue to act on climate change. > > **The Chairman:** Thank you. That is an interesting perspective. > > **Dr Doug Parr:** I agree with Mike on an awful lot of that. This is not the end. If you look at the factors that underpinned the success of the Paris Agreement—things like, yes, the impacts of climate change were becoming more real and, yes, we had a helpful presidency in the White House—let us not forget there was also a significant change of heart in China, driven by its domestic concerns around air pollution, coal and so on. A massive part of it was also the collapsing cost of renewable power in particular, which made something that looked incredibly expensive in the failed negotiations at Copenhagen start to look a fairly good idea, and those things are not changing. For states like the UK, which sit outside a negotiating bloc—I, too, think that that is a matter of regret, but we are where we are—there could be other initiatives around new technology, like the Indian solar initiative, where trying to effect things that are delivered rather than talking through the metrics of plans and targets would be a way forward, which would obviously change facts on the ground in a helpful and supportive way to the international process. 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. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2016, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-vital-is-the-united-states-in-the-fight-against-climate-change/773493/10 "2016-12-01T16:43:08Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > 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. Do you know what % comes from California, or New York? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2016, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-vital-is-the-united-states-in-the-fight-against-climate-change/773493/11 "2016-12-01T16:51:25Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2016, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-vital-is-the-united-states-in-the-fight-against-climate-change/773493/12 "2016-12-01T17:07:06Z")
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.”? ---
**Author:** ![nachtmusick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ac91a4/32.png) [@nachtmusick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nachtmusick)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2016, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-vital-is-the-united-states-in-the-fight-against-climate-change/773493/13 "2016-12-01T18:09:51Z")
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](http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/08/493191842/california-gov-jerry-brown-signs-new-climate-change-laws) 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. ---
**Author:** ![mrsmith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/58956e/32.png) [@mrsmith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrsmith)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2016, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-vital-is-the-united-states-in-the-fight-against-climate-change/773493/14 "2016-12-01T20:38:53Z")
I thought climate change was made up by the Chinese. Right? ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2016, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-vital-is-the-united-states-in-the-fight-against-climate-change/773493/15 "2016-12-01T20:54:55Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Do you know what % comes from California, or New York? 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. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2016, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-vital-is-the-united-states-in-the-fight-against-climate-change/773493/16 "2016-12-01T21:28:18Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2016, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-vital-is-the-united-states-in-the-fight-against-climate-change/773493/17 "2016-12-01T21:47:15Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2016, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-vital-is-the-united-states-in-the-fight-against-climate-change/773493/18 "2016-12-02T13:52:34Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2016, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-vital-is-the-united-states-in-the-fight-against-climate-change/773493/19 "2016-12-02T15:34:59Z")
> [@squidfood](#): > > 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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathways), instead of the status-quo RCP 8.5. > > How important is the U.S. contribution in achieving this particular goal? Is there a way to know how much carbon dioxide emissions will have to be cut in order to attain this goal? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2016, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-vital-is-the-united-states-in-the-fight-against-climate-change/773493/20 "2016-12-02T15:55:41Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > 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. 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. > **[Climate dollars and sense – preventing global warming is the cheap option |...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/apr/22/preventing-global-warming-cheaper-than-adapting)** > > Dana Nuccitelli: Arguments that climate adaptation is cheaper are like fruit salad – lemons, bananas, and comparing apples to oranges > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > 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. 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. > **[31,000 excess deaths last winter: what's to blame? - Full Fact](https://fullfact.org/news/31000-excess-deaths-last-winter-whats-blame/)** > > The Office for National Statistics estimates 20% more people died in winter last year compared with the rest of the year, and up by more than a quarter on the… [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-vital-is-the-united-states-in-the-fight-against-climate-change/773493.md?page=2)