The entire issue with climate change is something that effects you and your neighbor, agreement or disagreement.
I don’t disagree. But my point is that we can take care of our “part” of emission reductions without a Paris Accord, and if the other countries in the world (e.g., “neighbors) don’t like that we’re taking care of it on our own, that’s really not all that important. What matters is that we take care of own emissions problems, and as the original article pointed out….we seem to be doing just that.
Short sighted stances like that don’t really benefit even you in the long run.
I don’t agree that it is shortsighted to focus on US emissions first and foremost. We are still a pretty substantial polluter, despite the progress we’ve made, and a 20% reduction over a decade on our part would be a substantial reduction on worldwide emissions. If the Dutch cut 20%, that’s great, but its a rounding error worldwide.
But, on the larger question of climate change and it’s political support (or lack thereof):
Immediate needs are not negated by long term problems. People still need to eat and work. THIS REALITY is not negated by climate change:
Concerns about climate change obviously fall under SAFETY, but unlike the other items listed there, it is not as an immediate a safety concern as is physical security, economic security, and a roof over one’s head.
So, simply put, people are going to be concerned about their physiological and short-term security needs FIRST, before they become interested in a long-term security issue such as climate change.
Hope that helps.