That's right. The US is still one of the world's leaders in both energy availability and carbon emissions on a per capita basis, and we have a number of incentive programs for energy production and conversion that are counterproductive in terms of climate change (e.g subsidies for corn ethanol, unconventional oil/gas, single occupancy vehicle transport, detached housing [heat/AC]). These programs help maintain our leadership in per capita energy availability, but do so in the cheapest and most carbon intense way.



Targeting climate change does not need to rest entirely on new subsidies. We should instead redirect existing subsidies to more beneficial use.



Without reversing the high carbon lifestyle at home, it would not be persuasive to request that developing countries take a more costly but lower carbon development path.