Great question! It seems to me like one of the problems is the way that multiple parties are incentivized (naturally — I don’t mean by a conspiracy) to view an

Great question! It seems to me like one of the problems is the way that multiple parties are incentivized (naturally — I don’t mean by a conspiracy) to view anti-climate-change action as being weaponized by others to unfairly harm them. The #1 factor, I’d say, is that rich Western countries, having already had pretty reasonable and responsible regulation for decades, say (fairly) “Hold on, we’re supposed to (insert painful thing like high gas taxes, or electric cars when I have nowhere to charge it, or as we have in California, electricity prices 3x what it costs in many other states) when we know for a fact that they’re just running factories with zero emissions regulation in Asia?? Everybody knows it’s one atmosphere so if the third world just does their thing, all our sacrifice will do nothing despite its cost!! And the third world argues, fairly, that since we got to have our “burn all the filthy coal you want” period 50-200 years ago in the UK, US, etc. it’s utterly hilarious for us to clutch our pearls at them now and expect them to only grow their economies as fast as the expensive energy from solar panels will take them when they have 3 billion mouths to feed and very little money. Both sides have a good point and yes, it ignores the fact that if many scientists’ beliefs are right, ignoring the problem also isn’t a solution.