Hacker News Reader

A -> B, reduction of carbon is reduction in standard of living.

B -> C, reduction in standard of living requires a powerful central authority (rather than our current one being sufficient)

C -> D, a central authority will become hostile to its neighbors.

I'm not sure any of these suppositions are something I agree with. But that last one in particular... That one in particular seems a bit much.

View on HN

If a neighbor doesn’t get with the program (such as China or Russia, for instance), how would you suggest coercing them to the same end? And a central authority doesn’t have to be hostile to neighbors to provoke war. It may be viewed as hostile by its own subjects.

Afaict, China is very much on the program. The United states OTOH, not so much.

Fine. Let’s assume that’s true. The problem is still the same. How does China coerce the West to get with the program if the West refuses, for whatever reason.

The problem is still the same.

Tariffs, trade embargoes, financial sanctions.

The whole comment is basically 1 step away from: 'any structural change to address climate change is a communist plot!'

Reply on news.ycombinator.com