[yupitsme123]

First off, your's is a US-centric view. Other countries don't have those same obstacles but as far as I know their progress in eliminating CO2 has only been slightly better than ours.

Second, I don't see why political will is necessary. Most of the big changes that have happened in our lives over the past decades have had nothing to do with laws being passed or voters voting for anything. On the contrary private interests basically do what they want and the government getting involvement is seen as a hindrance not a help.

[jhanschoo]

> Second, I don't see why political will is necessary.

> Most of the big changes that have happened in our lives over the past decades have had nothing to do with laws being passed or voters voting for anything.

I can agree with the latter without agreeing with the former. But political will and oil go hand-in-hand. Governments have been destroyed by foreign interests in oil. Governments hostile to their people have been maintained by foreign interests in oil. Governments giving great security to its people have been built from sovereign oil.

Writing this response made me realize that you are right. Considering the means and methods of countervailing interests, democratic persuasion does not seem anywhere near sufficient, even though these are the methods being used by advocates. A surer path might involve highly militant and capable states willing to perform espionage, terrorism, and regime change to pursue environmental goals.

[queenkjuul]

I mean did you not just answer your own question? Political will comes from private interests, who are more concerned with next quarters profits than the plight of humanity.

I disagree with other commenters that the opinion of common people matters. Most Western political projects are tied to capital, not people.