The US government obviously. I suppose as the biggest polluter by far you are bound to lose out most but how is that everyone else's problem? And what an argument - 'oh yeah I would have but I knew nobody else would so I just did even worse'. Plenty of other governments signed up for Kyoto in 1990 and pushed for higher levels. Anyways, what sort of economy were you planning to have without a habitable planet? The strategy, and potentially a highly lucrative one given US lead in required green tech, would have been less denying the uncomfortable truth, less pandering to big oil lobby and more educating the willfully ignorant and more investment in renewables and a bit of using your market influence to push the agenda. Hardly ever going to be likely though with GWB et al in charge although he did correctly say that there needed to be a technological solution. Trump omgwtf - they should call that thing the Bigly Berg in his dishonour.

I have 100ha trees btw. Used to be veggie but as that means GM and worse soya i.e. bad and very, very bad, eat and fly fewer miles now.