> It does not make economic sense for a state or even a country to take costly unilateral action to reduce CO2 emissions when the cost is localized and the bene

> It does not make economic sense for a state or even a country to take costly unilateral action to reduce CO2 emissions when the cost is localized and the benefits are diffuse. That's kind of tautological. What about actions that aren't costly or actually save money? Or create geopolitical stability or healthier local environments. Those are obviously a good idea, right, like heat pumps and well insulated buildings and reducing subsidies on things we don't want, like leaked methane?