[mortivore]

I don't think it matters if you show businesses that climate will impact them financially. The people running the show may not be running it when the financial burden actually comes around.

If there is no impact or very little for the person/people currently running the business, then there is no reason to make a move to prevent/mitigate the problem.

[Joeri]

Not only that but I’m pretty sure that when the climate change bill comes due businesses will demand government help pay it, with the argument that the whole thing is the government’s fault anyway. And they’ll get what they want, because they always do.

[8ytecoder]

When there's water under the bridge, it would literally be a decision between putting the past behind and fixing the issue vs trying to point fingers and pin the blame on who was wrong. We'll bite the bullet and pay for all the necessary upgrades necessary. Businesses know it. Govt knows it. People will forget and move on as well. Human memory is short.

[Udik]

> when the climate change bill comes due businesses will demand government help pay it

What is the difference between having the government- the totality of citizens- pay for climate change mitigation; and adopting extremely expensive global measures that will make everyone poorer for a number of decades? I'm asking seriously. It seems very similar to me: in both cases the whole collectivity will pay (which is fair, since it's the whole collectivity that is enjoying the benefits of freely polluting the environment now).

[hexane360]

One takes disproportionately from those hurting the environment, providing incentives to cease and desist destructive behavior, while the other assumes that everyone and everything hurts the climate equally.