So it was failure because they weren't studying a different part of the problem? I was hoping the model they were discussing was how to convince the world to actually tackle this issue and less about the specific things we need to do if we did agree. But it doesn't discard their work or findings.

An entirely legitimate question.

I am once again asking people to read this paper and contemplate the impact on collective action decisions when ~30% of people appear to be willing to be be worse off themselves in order to inflict a loss on others.

Edit: fixed link https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/8/e1600451

Renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels, we just need to maintain momentum. EVs are headed on a similar path. Some economic activism is going to required to push against the cohort of populists who are specifically stuck on CO2 intensive activities (example activities might be buying and shuttering refineries, fossil infrastructure, etc).

Democracy mostly works, but some exception handling is required in this context.

> Democracy mostly works

I am not encouraged by what some US politicians are doing with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic right now. Why should I be more optimistic about their responses to the global warming situation?

While many US politicians have been pretty poor on climate change, the US federal government, state governments, Army, many large corporations outside the fossil extraction industry and academia have put in a fairly solid performance. It was democracy that built those systems and they've done well against a well funded opponent and a somewhat abstract threat and the tide seems to be turning so maybe there's room for hope.

You should not be. Which is why you need to be involved.

You alone will make little difference, but many of you together can change our course.

And, who knows? Maybe you'll be the spark that starts the (non CO2-emitting) flame.