Back in September at the United Nations Climate Change Summit, President Obama spoke about the threat of climate change, what the U.S. has done to combat it, and what still needs to be done by the U.S. and the world.
He alluded to the nature of the problem as one of collective action among multiple global partners, saying "in each country, there is a suspicion that if we act and other countries don't that we will be at an economic disadvantage." But he continued, "but we have to lead. That is what the United Nations and this General Assembly is about."
So in this speech, the President acknowledges the nature of the problem of climate change as one of collective action. This means that actions aimed at solving the problem, undertaken by individual agents without coordination with other, will tend to leave the problem unsolved, and even create a system of incentives inimical to resolving the problem at all; it means that some degree of coordination among multiple individual agents is necessary to solve the problem, instead of individual unilateral action.
Yet, in this same speech in which he confirms his view of climate change as a problem of collective action, he asserts that countries have to act individually anyway. He's not wrong; it would do good and it would provide a good example and show of good faith. But depending on individual countries to act on their own to solve the problem is unlikely. That's why international organizations and agreements are necessary.
A more plausible proposal, one that is less politically controversial, to deal with climate change would be emission-limiting legislation with a trigger mechanism to go into effect. Each country can pass a bill capping emissions on its own to show good faith, but without the risk of disadvantaging itself because it is written to only go into effect once a specified number of other countries, including possibly all of them, do the same.
Reasonable Society - political philosophy with a pragmatic bent, toward convergence and consensus in order to bring results in the real world Twitter: @R3snbleSciety
Save taxpayer's money AND defund climate change and environmental destruction by ending the enormous subsidies and tax breaks for animal agriculture!
ReplyDeleteWith 60+ BILLION food animals on the planet our best chance to mitigate climate change is to severely reduce consumption of animal foods. More than 1/3 of human induced warming is attributable to animal agriculture. Methane is 24 times more potent than CO2 but takes only 7 years to cycle out of the atmosphere. CO2 takes around 100 years to come out. Human pursuit of animal protein is the leading cause of methane release and a primary cause of CO2 concentrating in the atmosphere. Check the facts and act!
"As environmental science has advanced, it has become apparent that the human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future: deforestation, erosion, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities, and the spread of disease." Worldwatch Institute, "Is Meat Sustainable?"
“If every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetables and grains... the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars off of U.S. roads.” Environmental Defense Fund
"A 1% reduction in world-wide meat intake has the same benefit as a three trillion-dollar investment in solar energy." ~ Chris Mentzel, CEO of Clean Energy
There is one single industry destroying the planet more than any other. But no one wants to talk about it... http://cowspiracy.com
Step by Step Guide: How to Transition to a Vegan Diet http://www.onegreenplanet.org/vegan-food/step-by-step-guide-how-to-transition-to-vegan-diet/