Ah, yes and no. There's probably a very serious assessment of risks at a national level, and the result: Heartland productivity, more droughts in SW, more floods in SE, better mobility in bearing strait, yadda yadda ... just kind of seemed OK and not worth fretting over vs the then-perceived economic cost of pivoting away from fossil fuels.

well, when the most devious thing ou can do is less/nothing... this is the big nasty ethical dilema with climate change and access to medicine... maybe evils vs stupid is just two sides of the same coin...