>The people (i.e. voters) overwhelmingly support action to limit climate change. That's the reason those laws are politically viable in the first place.
In the abstract, sure, but if (hypothetically) 13 years from now people are staring down a 5 figure price increase will they still support it?
We are paying the price regardless. The trick is to get to the point where we can’t get out of paying what is due, because we’d try to weasel out of it even if climate change accelerated from doing so.
The only analogy I can think fitting is the condo building collapse in Miami where the condo board and residents were wringing their hands over $15 millions of dollars of work that needed to be done right up until catastrophic failure. While arguably unaffordable, it would’ve been cheaper than the deaths of 150+ people.
>The only analogy I can think fitting is the condo building collapse in Miami where the condo board and residents were wringing their hands over $15 millions of dollars of work that needed to be done right up until catastrophic failure. While arguably unaffordable, it would’ve been cheaper than the deaths of 150+ people.
While lamentable, I don't see why people will react any different re: climate policy. Of course people will say 'Yes I support policy to prevent condo collapse.' These same people will, as demonstrated, say 'No do not spend my money to prevent condo collapse.'
I'll take the bet they will. 45 °C is a point where the reasonable person is not wondering if climate change is real or worth doing something about any more.
In the abstract, sure, but if (hypothetically) 13 years from now people are staring down a 5 figure price increase will they still support it?