To me this language seems entirely consistent with my current position. In fact, if I had (at that time) been hoping for a voluntary pause, it would have been a strange choice for me to emphasis “consensus” leading to “regulation” when I could have just said something like “I’m excited about RSPs partly because it seems like people in those categories—not just people who agree with my estimates about risks—should support RSPs. This means that voluntary pausing based on conditional commitments is more likely than voluntary pausing today.”
I believe that all of my past writing on if-then commitments presents the theory of change as running through policy action, and generally discusses “escape clauses” as well, rather than focusing on voluntary action as the theory of change.
To me this language seems entirely consistent with my current position. In fact, if I had (at that time) been hoping for a voluntary pause, it would have been a strange choice for me to emphasis “consensus” leading to “regulation” when I could have just said something like “I’m excited about RSPs partly because it seems like people in those categories—not just people who agree with my estimates about risks—should support RSPs. This means that voluntary pausing based on conditional commitments is more likely than voluntary pausing today.”
I believe that all of my past writing on if-then commitments presents the theory of change as running through policy action, and generally discusses “escape clauses” as well, rather than focusing on voluntary action as the theory of change.