Exactly this. If we drop the cost per kWh by half, the market will respond. The market doesn’t ultimately care about the planet which is why we need govt but bringing the price per kWh with clean fusion kills two birds with one stone.
Which is why I mentioned consumers. Voters have made this incredibly clear every time polled: we are not wiling to pay more to reduce emissions.
That's putting it mildly.
This approach to "polling" also appears to ignore the fact that statistically speaking, almost half "the population" made the opposite choice. This makes sweeping statements about "what people want" based on this sort of thing pretty suspect.
Of course, the claim could be true, nevertheless. This sort of "evidence" isn't really very salient, however.
2018 in America, "57 percent of Americans are willing to pay a $1 monthly fee; 23 percent are willing to pay a monthly fee of $40" [1]. 2018 in France, "carbon taxes on petrol and diesel" prompt les gilets jaunes [2]. 2024 in America, "more than half of Americans are unwilling to pay any amount of money to combat climate change" [3].
And then there is the global success of climate-skeptic or outright denialist citing the cost of Paris Agreement compliance.
[1] https://apnorc.org/projects/is-the-public-willing-to-pay-to-...
[2] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/31/opinions/macron-warning-c...
[3] https://epic.uchicago.edu/insights/2024-poll-americans-views...
I do recall one of the catchphrases that surfaced around les gilets jaunes: "these people are going on about the end of the world while we're just trying to make it to the end of the month".
It's too bad that doesn't prompt deeper reflection about and anger at just who benefits from such a bifurcation of interest.