Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45
In other words, if it looks like the person with 28 dogs isn't going to pick up their dogs' shits, then if the cost of picking up your own dog's shit is substantial, I can see the argument for not bothering. (Not saying we're there, but we could be eventually.)
|
Most countries will basically do what is most economical, plus there is this tragedy of the commons aspect (you might get screwed anyway due to somebody else even if you sacrifice the most). Some will say they think this is a very important issue and promise to do better but then not actually follow through much, like Canada or the US up until today. Others that seem like they're doing a good job are sometimes just the countries that coincidentally produced lower CO2 emissions, the places losing heavy industry or population.
Given this reality I think we need better energy sources and storage mechanisms. I'm not against "policing" but I don't think it'll work well in the long run. And China is not really listening to Western media or moral panic at all.
Also we should accept that the world's solution will be imperfect since we have never before done the kind of coordination that people are now demanding. Maybe in limited domains like reducing CFC emissions but not when it comes to the most basic energy sources. Thankfully if you look at say UN reports on climate change costs they're generally not actually very high relative to projected economic growth (most people in the "climate change is a serious problem" camp more or less ignore these reports).
Or maybe a major volcano will erupt and we'll have a completely different set of issues for a while.