Look we can go back and forward and at the end we are both right. . .example, I can say that we doing something about our environment does not make a difference because of countries like China and India's pollution make it over the pacific into our environment. . .

The mechanism for dealing with this between countries is by signing treaties. The mechanism for dealing with this between US states is by passing federal laws.

The same goes for the world. If we don't burn the stuff, the price will go down. Some other country will burn it.

We might as well have a nice economy while the world burns. There is no stopping this train.

> If we don't burn the stuff, the price will go down.

Not if the tax is on removing it from the ground to begin with. And we could issue sanctions on anyone who doesn't impose the same tax in their own country.

If I were a country and another country imposed sanctions on me for not following their exceptional laws, I would take that as a sign of aggression; that is essentially what it is; Instrumental Aggression; Countries rely on different exportation of resources for their economy, the economy their people live off; stop it with this American Exceptionalism approach; be a leader by example not by aggression.

Continuing to burn coal when the global consequences are known is the act of aggression. The measured reaction is sanctions instead of missiles.

That is an interesting projection of your attitude. I hate to attribute a negative disposition to your comment, but you sound like an environmental extremist. Environmental extremist whom if given the opportunity would indirectly blow the world up, all in the name of the environment! Keep in mind that you have created this slippery slope, I reference to my initial comment; To give context to my reference (if it is not already obvious), I am for progressive laws for which people will adapt to hence given the choice not the forceful option, like sanctions; I am all for change just do not force it on me, and I you believe that a paternalistic government is needed for a positive change than you have already defined paternalist; paternalism through aggressive actions, like sanctions. Good day sir

Climate change is classic tragedy of the commons. It's the quintessential example of it.

There are two ways out of tragedy of the commons. The first is that everyone recognizes we're all better off not destroying the world with CO2 and everyone stops burning coal. That works perfectly fine if that's what everyone does.

But if you'll notice the comment I was responding to was arguing that not everybody would. Which is possible. In which case only the second option works, which is for the victims of harm to exert power until the perpetrators submit. And that can lead to war -- which is why everyone should stop burning coal now.

This sort of attempt to control the resource usage of Japan (oil, rubber, etc.) is why Pearl Harbor got attacked. Starting the next world war is probably bad for the environment.

You're leaving out the entire purpose of the blockade: preventing Japan from importing oil and other goods to supply their massive invasion of China and Southeast Asia.

The attack on Pearl Harbor wasn't unprovoked, but failing to do anything would likely have ended up with the U.S. being attacked by a stronger set of allied opponents.

More people are slated to die from climate change than died in WWII. Countries will fight wars over this if it isn't settled peacefully first.