Solar hardware is so affordable now that it's booming even in poorer countries. The most remarkable recent example is Pakistan, which has seen explosive growth of rooftop solar power, most of it receiving no government subsidies:

Pakistan has imported almost 45 gigawatts worth of solar panels over the last five or six years, which is equal to the total capacity of its electricity grid. Almost 34 gigawatts have come in only in the last couple of years.

It’s a very bottom-up revolution. This is not government deciding this is the route to take. And it’s not being driven by climate concerns, it’s all about the economics. Renewables are out-competing the traditional sources of energy.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/pakistan-solar-boom

Great job of indirectly implying that there must be a tradeoff. Funny thing though: those poor countries? They're not building nuclear, or oil fired, or coal fired, or natural gas plants. They're installing solar. Not necessarily because they care about what percentage of their energy usage is renewable, but because there is no tradeoff.

Further, environmental protection is not a luxury good, it's a long term investment. Ask me more in another 30-50 years when the larger impacts of climate change are happening. Or ask someone else about how much we've spent on superfund cleanup sites.

Environmental protection IS about survival for poor countries. YOU can afford to not care and burn gas because you won't have your life completely and permanently destroyed by global warming. Poor people don't have that luxury.

Rethink your position because it's completely upside down

> Environmental protection is a luxury good. This has been proven time and time again.

I see this lie repeated in many places. Environmental protection is much, much cheaper than the alternative.

> That's because you're rich like most people on HN.

Probably, but I also haven't been rich all my life, I've also been broke and borderline homeless, and my point of view of paying taxes so others get helped, hasn't changed since then. In fact, probably the reason my perspective is what it is, is because money like that has helped me when I was poor, and I'd like to ensure we continue doing that for others.

And I agree, poor countries can't afford to think about "luxury problems" like the pollution in the world, but since we're talking about people living in such countries where we can afford about these problems, lets do that, so the ones who can't, don't have to. Eventually they'll catch up, and maybe at that point we can make it really easy for them to transition to something else?

Poor countries are switching to solar: https://climatedrift.substack.com/p/why-solarpunk-is-already...

Turkey is a poorer country and has more wind and solar capacity by percentage than US.

> A great reason to prioritize growth and wealth creation. Poor countries don't make those tradeoffs, they're worried about survival not what percentage of their energy usage is renewable.

Tell that to places like Pakistan where solar is allowing people to have cheaper electricity without connecting to the grid

Canada isn't poor.

the only reason environmental protection could conceivably be considered a luxury (and not a necessity) is because certain sectors of the capital class refuse to convert their means of production away from generating waste and pollution. that's it. time and time again we see direct action by Chevron, BP, Shell, Exxon, ARAMCO et al to stifle change, refuse scientific evidence of the nature of their pollution, and attack anyone who comes anywhere near impacting their bottom line. look at Steven Donzinger if you need proof of this.

this is not a matter of some fictional invisible hand. these are decisions made by real people who do not care about you, society, the health of the environment or the people who inhabit it. stop carrying their water.