I’m on mobile, so I don’t have the study link handy, but a bill which is very popular among ordinary people and very unpopular among corporations stands somethi

I’m on mobile, so I don’t have the study link handy, but a bill which is very popular among ordinary people and very unpopular among corporations stands something like a 30% chance of being passed into law while a bill which is very popular among corporations but very unpopular among voters has nearly 100% chance of being signed into law (I don’t remember exact numbers). > It befuddles me when blame is placed on corporations in a country whose population explicitly prioritizes driving pickup trucks and SUVs for grocery and school runs. Any upwards movement in fossil fuel prices, which are already among the lowest for large democratic countries, results in the general public to be furious at politicians. Everyone is just responding to market incentives at the end of the day, which is the point behind carbon pricing: align our environmental and financial incentives. So I prefer to focus on systemic solutions rather than placing blame, although I certainly think it’s good and useful to blame/shame corporations and politicians who actively oppose the public good (even though this kind of corruption is another form of responding to incentives). > Voters in America only want a reduction in usage of fossil fuels as long as it does not affect their expected future lifestyle Perhaps, but that’s irrelevant because we don’t actually need to change our lifestyles very much. Implement a carbon tax and gradually raise the price over time so it gives corporations some time to optimize their processes for efficiency thereby keeping consumer costs low. That corporations can and do respond to legislated incentives is one of the takeaways of TFA, after all.