Hacker News Reader

That seems like obviously the wrong question, since it has at least the potential to rule out viable solutions a priori.

For example, what would be wrong with preventing developing nations from cheaply industrialising, while also subsidising them to do something else instead?

View on HN

The question you pose is effectively why we’re in the situation we’re in. To solve the climate crisis all externalities need to effectively be captured in the price in order to stabilize the market failure with respect to said externalities.

Subsidies are what we do now already which is why we’re in the situation we’re in.

Conditional subsidies ("we'll give you money if you don't build that nasty coal plant") do capture an externality, so I'm not sure what point you're making.

That just goes back to the original question then - where’s the money coming from? Who is paying? How much do they have to sacrifice?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com