> If we can make Mars habitable, we can make Earth habitable for far less cost.
I think the main thing there is that Mars is a blank slate, unclaimed and fairly uniform. We can't terraform Earth because we can't get everyone aligned with the same goals. Moving away from fossil fuels means that a lot of individuals, corporations and countries have to make investments and sacrifices, or lose their grounds for existence entirely.
I mean this was only achieved once, when banning CFCs. There's been other agreements - like let's not use cluster bombs or chemical weapons - but those have been ignored without major consequences.
Why would you not expect these exact same challenges to develop almost immediately on Mars? It's not like one country will own Mars and even if it did, one country generally cannot agree on environmental policy even internally. I fully expect Mars, at best, to be a terrible version of Earth with all the same problems and way fewer benefits.
When has "This is too hard, let's do a full rewrite" ever worked?
Economics is how we align goals. When using clean energy is better and cheaper than fossil fuels then people don't need to be coerced into adopting it. It's rapidly reaching that state and already is there for many.
I think the main thing there is that Mars is a blank slate, unclaimed and fairly uniform. We can't terraform Earth because we can't get everyone aligned with the same goals. Moving away from fossil fuels means that a lot of individuals, corporations and countries have to make investments and sacrifices, or lose their grounds for existence entirely.
I mean this was only achieved once, when banning CFCs. There's been other agreements - like let's not use cluster bombs or chemical weapons - but those have been ignored without major consequences.