Political policy often argues that things of potentially great societal risk should be paid by political subdivisions whose cost is unknown as is the greater benefit. This is used to persuade even when the objective impact is elusive. Such as a decision to go to harm a destructive trade partner with a small boycott or invest in solar and wind to fight global warming. The dominant collective strategy choice ( e.g., tough sanctions or higher energy taxes to reduce carbon emissions) may not reduce risk if the political subdivision cannot get critical mass to actually impact the outcome. Voluntary individual action (e.g., reducing consumption of goods and services from offending trade partners / personal efficiency ethos (the "rabbit")) may reduce risk and require less resources with bigger impact more than the isolated involuntary action targeting the larger strategy (e.g., pressuring a democratic republic to negotiate tough sanctions or multilateral climate change response).