Opponents — including plenty of former global warming deniers who have rebranded themselves as economic pragmatists — have cast these steps as too ambitious, too costly or both. Which is to say, we can’t afford to save the planet.
To put it as soberly as we can, it’s that same old suicidal nonsense recast to pass for common sense.
Even if it is is no longer economically practical according to their definition, I have no empathy. Usually iits because of defeating one of the steps that would get you there.
Given the example in the article, I don’t know how practical the goal is to achieve since I don’t live in NY but I know that abandoning NYC congestion pricing means making less progress, the goal will be more difficult to achieve. Congrats you’ve created your own problem