Not exactly. They're

(Problem -> Root Cause -> Solution) "dependencies". The very nature of negative externalities is that they're problems that societies have to deal with when one entity decides to profit at the detriment of his neighbors.

Here's an example of "negative externalities" that is actually true, and took place near a town where I used to live.

Assume: You're a property owner, and you don't want Pig Farm, INC to buy the parcel next to you and put up a pig farm because of the smell, potential health problems due to the (literally) toxic waste, etc. Yeah, there are regulations, but Pig Farm, INC has figured out that if it has a facility with 99 instead of 100 pigs that it can skirt the laws.

Problem: Pig waste is toxic, and causes health problems that you're beginning to notice is affecting your children. Root Cause: There's a pig farm next door to your house. Solution: Move. Or get the pig farm move.

Problem: You were there first. Why should you move? Besides, you can't afford to move because you're behind on doctor bills resultant from the toxic pig farm emissions. Root Cause: Doctor bills coupled with the fact that nobody will buy your house because it's next to a pig farm. Solution: Take the loss on your house and move anyway; health benefits outweigh the desire to hold on to your property in a place that is making you and your family sick.

Problem: Pig Farm, INC bulldozes the house you used to live on and builds another facility, which conveniently holds 99 pigs. What used to be just your problem is now your former neighbor's problem.

In summary, it's not about "money for the solution" it's about an "equitable solution". If one farm in town is causing 95 percent of the town's health problems, and causing loss of equity to 98 percent of its residents, that's a good thing only for the CEO of Pig Farm, INC who's raking in the money with the increased salary due to demand for bacon and pork and sausage.