Hacker News Reader

Comment by snappyTertle | Hacker News Reader

I don't think many people disagree that climate change exists. What's debated is what the proper solution is. Throwing public money necessarily diverts private resources. Who is to say gov't has a better solution? Would you really trust a bureaucratic monopoly led by Trump to come up with the best policy for energy? I don't think gov't should be in charge of picking favorites with regulations and grants.

View on HN

Well depends on your definition of many. Seems like 35% of Americans dont believe climate change is man made. So I don't think this can be framed as just a debate between people wanting public vs private counter measures. There is also still a very large group of people (including many in the Trump administration) that are skeptical of the whole concept.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eig...

Having a large group of people (including the Trump administration) not "believe" (in this case, beliefs shouldn't matter, we should be looking at facts) climate change is exactly why this should not be a public issue.

Once it's public, people vote for a blanket solution or government officials (by no means environment experts) decide what to do. Private companies should be free to innovate and try multiple different solutions where the best one sticks.

Honest question: what incentive would private companies have to address climate change? It strikes me as a perfect example of an externality that these companies wouldn't be incentivized to change.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com