When the government says we can't have clean energy because "x", but then totally disregards "x" for burning fossil fuels, that kinda ties in with "what do we do about climate change and clean energy".
Sir, the US federal government invests billions in clean/alternative energy every year. Of course, this amount
will fluctuate given the power structure of the country (as it
has lowered under Trump administration and Republican Congress), however this is really not relevant since the
federal government is always in flux. Thus, the level of funding will always be in flux.
The private sector has been quite brilliant in its support for clean/alternative energy, I believe this is the more interesting discussion.
I am going to go ahead and assume Lacius was referring to the CO2 pollution rate per capita (if this assumption is wrong, please forgive Lacius!). Though this figure is not surprising given that the countries with higher equity use
more petrol and have higher levels of industrial production. Thus,
GDP per capita should be factored into this calculation. We should also factor in a subtractive element to our equation, for the amount of effort that is put into reducing the CO2 output (this would be with regards to achievement, not level of funding). Again, the US has spent considerable money and resource on this problem, where other countries have fallen short.
Now,
some governments throughout the world do contribute to the reduction of their emissions, however my argument is that government funding alone is not sufficient. The US has achieved a sudden renaissance in clean/alternative energy technology over the last decade thanks to a surge of private funding and investment. The advancements have been astounding. This is where I have been trying to center the conversation.
Government policy/regulation may assist with climate change, however with the government constantly in flux, how dependable are these policies and regulations? They are but temporary measures.