I don't agree with this line of reasoning. I would not expect a random commercial company to decide to do this on their own. I would expect the population and p

I don't agree with this line of reasoning. I would not expect a random commercial company to decide to do this on their own. I would expect the population and politicians of a country to realise this is what needs to be done, and to put into law public-funded initiatives to work towards these goals. In the non-US country where I live, we already do this with sustainable energy sources and vehicle types. We tax usage of fossil-fuel vehicles, and give subsidies on using 'clean-energy' vehicles. We execute policies on windmill farms and solar panel areas. We also publicly finance e.g. the common shared road network of asphalt, without having an owning commercial company directly profiting off our road network. The only reason I can see this would break, is to the extent public government law turns into a lobbying nightmare, where all law-making is reduced to paid-for-by-lobbyist initiatives. Outside the US, that is not where we are yet (though I am aware of the risk - money and power perpetually will corrupt). I don't see the problem as mainly a billionare-problem ('this is not a problem for billionaires.') Instead, I see the problem with countries that disagree on these policies - country A spending 100s of billions to fix climate issues, at the same time country B ignores it all and behaves like, well, the US and Russia. So if