The proponents of the ‘convenient solution’ discussed in Chapter 3 see the cost of climate action as one of government investment in new infrastructure. However, as there is not time for this to scale sufficiently, we must think differently about cost. Voluntarily restraining ourselves from emitting activities may save us money, but in most cases at present, purchasing equipment compatible with zero emissions costs more than the emitting alternative. Eventually, governments will legislate to ban emissions, by which time we will only compare the costs of different emissions-free alternatives. On the journey to that point, governments can aim to help us change by subsidising zero-emissions projects or taxing emitting activities. Carbon pricing has proved to be politically impossible, due to competition in trade and the high costs it would place on householders. Instead, we can all re-think the timescale of our purchasing decisions and recognise that paying for the higher costs of emissions-free options today is in reality an investment in the future, like a pension or savings account, aiming to avoid the far worse costs of a global war over food.