> Except a single factory in China emits more CO2 than all the readers of this HN thread combined

This is just not true. World's richest 10% produce half of global carbon emissions [0] I would guess a fair share of HN readers are in the top 10%

[0] https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-ex...

Still China outputs more than 2x the U.S. volume:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

Don't forget that U.S has outsourced its industry to China. Just look at the current trade balance. It's all over the news now thanks to the trade war. And the reason it was outsourced is precisely because environmental regulations are weaker in China and therefore production is cheaper. And on top of that you add shipping emissions, which are not included in any country emissions.

Or 1/2 what the US outputs per capita, which is the more relevant figure since the atmosphere does not care about arbitrary political boundaries.

To be fair China is basically the factory of the world, manufacturing a lot of the gadgets that are mostly used in 1st world countries.

It's pretty clear that if the west consumed less China wouldn't pollute nearly as much. So yes, everybody has a choice, either be actively part of it or try to pollute as little as possible.

You're saying "the impact of one person is limited therefore no one should take action". I'd argue that everyone should take action, show the example in your home, local community, &c. Little by little people get more engaged, just look at the green parties in Europe, 20 years ago they barely got 1% of votes in elections, now they get >20% in some countries.

What is it spewing out co2 for, and for whom? Never mind the toxic waste from chemicals dumped in rivers.

Turn every thing you own upside down and find the scripture "Made in China".

Any clues?

> And I am sorry to say that, but I don't think that a global framework enforcing the same environmental restrictions on every country in the world, regardless of its economic state, is realistic. Sorry.

Those frameworks already exist. There's a framework for CFCs that has been effective at slowing the destruction of global ozone. There's a framework that governs the disposal of radioactive materials. And yes, there's already one for greenhouse gases. The U.S. president just pulled the U.S. out of it. So, one thing that U.S. residents can do is vote for a new president who will put the U.S. back into it.

> once the global warming effects start noticeably affecting regular people, there will be a wave on businesses built around mitigating those effects

The fundamental problem is that real estate is by far the largest store of global wealth, and global warming will destroy some of that via sea level rise, and potentially alter some other parts by shifting weather patterns.

It is hard to solve social problems with profitable businesses in the face of large-scale declining wealth. That's usually called a recession or depression, and every time we've faced that sort of problem in the past century, the government has had to step in to help. In fact, addressing those sorts of problems is one reason humanity invented government in the first place.

>And I am sorry to say that, but I don't think that a global framework enforcing the same environmental restrictions on every country in the world, regardless of its economic state, is realistic. Sorry.

We don't need a perfect global framework. We just need to shift incentives to some extent. The market is already coming up with some non-carbon alternatives. Adding a carbon tax will shift incentives further and increase tech development.

To mitigate the effects, business need an energy source. Either it's:

* a replacement to carbon, or

* still carbon

If it's still carbon, you can't reverse the causes, and mitigation gets harder and harder as you worsen the problem.

You're effectively arguing that:

1. There's no use trying now, it's basically impossible, but

2. Despite not trying now, we will solve the impossible problem at some future point.

You're perhaps arguing that the problems of global warming will help us. This seems rather like Bastiat's parable of the broken window.

Negative changes will only hurt us, and individual solutions can't fix a global atmosphere.

I am arguing that we need a framework where an individual's actions reducing the carbon footprint will benefit that individual instead of reducing their life quality. Carefully designed taxes that would make non-carbon alternatives more competitive are realistic. Asking/forcing people to scale down their lifestyle without offering viable alternatives isn't.

Fair enough. I tend to agree then. I think taxes, with tax reductions in other areas to offset the pain, are a better solution than asking for individual effort.

You hadn't mentioned this in your comment though, so I thought you were arguing something else.