They could, but presumably further subsidizes would stop. This only works by continually and voluntarily applying flattening pressure to a power dynamic (which

They could, but presumably further subsidizes would stop. This only works by continually and voluntarily applying flattening pressure to a power dynamic (which some might even call justice), and only to some extent. This is, however, a problem far easier to manage and deal with than the collectively suicidal tendencies we're stuck with now. And of course the devil would be in the details, and it'd probably look messy and ugly. But I just cannot conceive of it being messier and uglier than the future we're staring down the barrel of. I think the biggest barrier to this is not any rational problem that might be individually addressed but America's embarrassment at likely losing hegemony in the event we collectively manage to survive this catastrophe without mass death and the four horsemen. Really, refusing to stop global warming is a path towards retaining hegemony by taking advantage of future chaos as we have of past chaos. Everyone knows we have massive farmlands and water sources, enough to support our own people probably many many times over, and others do not have this luxury.