[satvikpendem]

Like you I also believe that the only way to get companies to listen is through money, not idealism, so by making renewables cheaper than fossil fuels (which thankfully is currently happening), companies will naturally use them over fossil fuels.

[unhammer]

Though if we keep extracting fossil fuels at the same rate, while electric cars lead to less demand for them, the price of fossil fuels will go down. Then people (corporations) will buy cheap fossil fuel for other stuff (now cruise tickets got even cheaper because electric cars lead to less demand for oil! When it gets really cheap you can heat your outdoor pool in January off a diesel generator.)

Of course, when the price of oil starts dropping, they'll have to extract at a faster rate to keep profits up.

[Aerroon]

This is true, but will those companies actually stay in a place like Montana or would they just go... elsewhere? Rural areas aren't the most attractive places for business.

[Aachen]

If you can have such laws and judgements, why couldn't other places?

As more and more places outlaw bad practices, one could subsequently argue, it becomes increasingly lucrative to facilitate cheap fossil fuel usage. But look at how easy it is to do international trade with Russia before and after 2022: we can choose our partners and, while we can't force them, we can stop business from moving there, solving the problem for the vast majority of people's supplies and thus emissions.

Believing that a majority of others aren't as benevolent as oneself is the only bar to that being possible. Took me a bit to find it again, but I think the technical term for this is worst-motive fallacy: "participants significantly expected the [other] to pursue a worse course of action than they would prefer themselves" https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797620954492

[Aerroon]

>If you can have such laws and judgements, why couldn't other places?

Of course you can, but the playing field isn't level to begin with. Over the past century we've seen an increasing amount of urbanization happen. This causes issues such as constantly increasing housing prices, which make it into a good investment, which leads to more increases in housing prices. If you remove the reason for businesses to be in Montana, then some of them just won't be in Montana. They'll go where every other business is congregating to, because why wouldn't they?

Just look at the economic outcomes of "coal country". What you'll see is poverty. Climate action is important, but I have serious doubts on whether the people involved understand the kind of economic impact these decisions can have on the future of their state/city. Maybe they're rich enough that it won't affect them, but it's going to affect many.

You could say that "Oh, people will account for this and make sure that the poor people aren't affected," but then you look at eastern and western Kentucky. When the coal mines stopped hiring as many, the towns started dying out. What's left behind is poverty (by US standards).

I do think more needs to be done to stop climate change, but I would like to see people at least acknowledge the impacts it's going to have as a start.

[Aachen]

I don't know the specifics of US coal mine history so I can't comment on most of this, but looking at the broader, long-term picture:

> What's left behind is poverty (by US standards).

I'm afraid that climate change, at least if we would all apply US levels of action, would result in non-US levels of poverty for all but the wealthiest few. Depending also on how heavy-handed/inhumane one wants to be towards displaced immigrants from places that become mostly inhospitable or below sea level (most people worldwide live in coastal regions)