The Political Climate: an ongoing commentary on the NH Primary and Climate Change

Cass Sunstein had this interesting piece in the Washington Post over the weekend. The thesis is that while the United States and China are the biggest greenhouse gas polluters and will thus have to bear the greatest burden in reducing global emissions, the concrete incentives to do so are significantly less than other countries and there is, in consequence, no great urgency to address this problem.

Sunstein argues that the U.S. and China will not face the agricultural disasters and disease outbreaks that are projected for other areas, particularly India and Africa. They are therefore left to find the political and social will to make major changes in the (relatively) lesser effects of climate change that they will suffer, the fallout from economic turmoil elsewhere on the interdependent globe, or a moral imperative to preserve the planet’s climate more-or-less as it is.

It’s interesting stuff, though I don’t think most Americans, at least, look at climate change and think, “Well, it won’t be a bad for me as a malarial african farmer trying to raise crops in a drought, so I don’t think I’ll do anything.” Americans evaluate things in light of their current situations, and by that measure, the effects of climate change predicted by many scientists should be enough of a spur to action even if they don’t reach the calamitous levels that may occur in other parts of the world.