• DarthFrodo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    There’s no way they would do that since climate change is a “tradegy of the commons” problem.

    The tragedy of the commons is a metaphoric label for a concept that is widely discussed in economics, ecology and other sciences. According to the concept, should a number of people enjoy unfettered access to a finite, valuable resource such as a pasture, they will tend to over-use it, and may end up destroying its value altogether. To exercise voluntary restraint is not a rational choice for individuals – if they did, the other users would merely supplant them – yet the predictable result is a tragedy for all.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

    Currently, every country seeks to maximize the emissions that they are still allowed to have without being penalized (internationally, and by their own population).

    • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      The US landed men on the moon to show the Soviets who has the better technology. All countries have already agreed that climate change is not only a problem, but that emissions have to be lowered in the Paris Agreement. Soft power is real power, so a race towards zero emissions is entirly possible. Also there are other reasons for doing it too. Right now the US has a political disliking of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela and many other large oil producers. All of them would be weakend by the US lowering its own oil consumption too.

      • Letstakealook@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Unfortunately, the US decided to go the other direction and become a major oil producer in the last twenty years for the very reason you mention.