Hacker News Reader

Comment by algoatecorn | Hacker News Reader

Both mine and rayiner's commentary wasn't focused only on nuclear, but rather the harebrained and unrealistic doomscape narrative coming out of the West. When did it become so unpopular to point out what is most likely to happen? Because if we're placing bets, I'm gonna put my money on the developing nations not giving a flying F about emissions. Therefore, we need to think like realists and instead of idealists.

View on HN

If you want to be realistic, the more realistic option is for rich nations to fund green infrastructure projects in poorer countries. It is much easier and cheaper and likelier to succeed than every nation with a GDP lower than Connecticut developing a nuclear program on their own, or for carbon sequestration to become viable.

And alas, climate relief fund—or rather a loss and damage fund—is already a thing. Approved in the last COP and already ratified by the EU. (I know, it is much weaker than real climate relief, but proves it is possible). with some European countries already with some programs in place for paying climate relief in foreign countries.

If you want to be a realist, you should commit to it, and apply it equally.

> If you want to be realistic, the more realistic option is for rich nations to fund green infrastructure projects in poorer countries.

It's not realistic at all for developed countries to bankroll green infrastructure in the developed world at a scale that allows those developing countries to continue 6-8% GDP growth annually.

So you want your government to subsidize nuclear energy in other countries?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com