Don't think it's even a strange thought; the US has been always much happier with industrial policy than welfare. "NASA, but for your climate" is a much easier political sell than "let's give foreigners [almost] free luxury goods".

And if you don't want people in the developing world to simply sell the brand new Teslas you've swapped for their 30 year old bangers, you're also going to have to build out a charging infrastructure, ensure that new power stations built to handle the increased electricity demand are renewable, and shut down people's routes to simply buying new ICE cars manufactured in other countries and pocketing the difference between that and the cost of the Tesla. Even assuming that politics doesn't exist and the world will do exactly what the US wants if they spend enough money. the cost of offset doesn't seem quite so expensive after all...

Just as an aside, "NASA, but for your climate" is the coolest idea for a government agency. Big climate moonshots, stuff to inspire people. I love it! I wish it could be so.

The solution to that is to subsidize production of the alternative products in your own country for export. Then subsidized US-made solar panels and electric cars would be cheaper for people in Africa and South America than burning coal, but you get all the US jobs etc.

> subsidized US-made solar panels and electric cars would be cheaper for people in Africa and South America than burning coal, but you get all the US jobs etc.

You're still giving productive infrastructure to foreign countries. A Nazi doormat could get elected running to redirect those panels and subsidies for domestic use.

If you haven't already replaced all of your own fossil fuels, redirecting them to domestic use is fine. If you have, they would have to fight all the people who want to keep their jobs making products for export.