Climate change involves fundamental choices about how we want to live and what kind of world we want.

Since we're not very good at something as basic as controlling our reproduction, life is really bad for more people than ever before.

Citizens often think of a state's interests in terms of the promotion of ideals such as democracy, a particular way of life, or other values which they endorse or see as part of their historical continuity and identity. In this domain as in others values are not fixed, and so a state's interests are dynamic and in a constant state of negotiation and construction.

In much of the world today there are no more chilling words than "I'm from the United States and I'm here to help you."

If you look globally you see a patchwork of jurisdictions (nations, states, provinces, cities) that have taken aggressive action on climate change, and a patchwork of jurisdictions that have not. These various policies reflect the politics of each jurisdiction and the values of its citizens.

Every country now has its own domestic political debate about how to respond to climate change. This is where the action is.

I think that by the middle of this century people will still be eating meat (though less), and their meat will mostly be produced in factories through synthetic processes, cell cultures, and so on.