It seemed a bit odd to me that it costs more PC to raise Reforestation than to enact it from scratch. From that, I decided to list all of the policies that are equally or more politically costly to raise (>25%) than to initially enact, in the interest of discussion and uncovering any potential oversight.
Interested to know what people think about this. My thinking is that there are some situations where a policy can be implemented initially easier than it can be changed based on the following logic:
Some things seem harmless in theory, when people are discussing implementing them, because they are just an idea. Nobody really expects it to ever get done, or to work, or be used or whatever…
…But then the policy DOES get done, and suddenly its a real world thing with actual visible evidence, and real-world data and effects and consequences. At this point, it might be harder to cancel, or harder to increase/reduce, because suddenly everyone can point to the actual consequence and make their case more visibly and loudly.
I tend to notice louder and more determined opposition to new ideas than adjustments to existing ones. People love to polarize about new ideas, either that they will solve every problem in the world and build a paradise with just one policy, or that they sky will fall if the doom policy gets implemented. I don’t tend to notice much excitement about adjusting existing policies, even if the adjustment is to move a decimal.
Some examples from Canada would be the levels of… excitement?..over the implementation of a carbon tax compared to how little anybody notices when income tax levels change. Another would be the strength of opinions when recreational cannabis was legalized versus the lack of basic blinking when regulations around alcohol change.
I would also say that this topic needs to be taken a step further, and that smaller adjustments need better value for the PC. For example, an early move on my part is typically to adjust secularity of education. Two separate moves of 10% costs the same PC as one move of 25%, meaning the single 18 PC play is better value. This is backwards. Small changes which slowly creep up on people should be more politically efficient, as people don’t take much notice of any one change.