> A 2022 poll conducted by Colorado College found that nearly 60 percent of Montanans believe in climate change and want to address it, including by transitioning to renewable energy. Of the more than 1,000 comments submitted by local residents on House Bill 971, a whopping 95 percent opposed it.
Bold to ignore the will of your constituents with such fervor.
That's not how most collective decision making goes though. You just make the rule and lets the costs be what they'll be. If you could omnipotently know the individual costs of laws people would oppose all of them -- real purchasing power is horrible right now, taking anyone's discretionary income for anything will be wildly unpopular.
I think $44.9 billion/year is about the current cost to build enough solar and wind electricity generation to cover 100% of US peak consumption in only 10 years (construction costs for both today are about $1/watt). That's a pretty big amount all things considered.
Game theory says that considering climate change when China doesn’t is their wrong move. Dispite the fact that it produces a worse outcome compared to cooperation.
Nothing really terrible about this. It’s not really anti climate it’s about not using things with no defined value in project proposal considerations.
There's a game-theory solution to this, which is to impose a tax on imports from countries in order to make up for their lack of aggressiveness in addressing climate change, aka, a border-adjustment mechanism. It's not perfect, but it provides a way to encourage every country to work together by punishing ones that don't. It also discourages industries from outsourcing in order to skirt environmental regulations.
Climate change isn't a game. It shouldn't be viewed in terms of win/lose.
If we actually start doing something about the problem and China doesn't, there will be a lot of pressure on them to do so as well. Or risk exclusion from global markets.
Bold to ignore the will of your constituents with such fervor.