If green energy needs marketplace protection from competition, then how is it a viable product? Viable products, products that offer a compelling argument for itself can compete and succeed in the marketplace. If green energy requires high gas prices to be economically viable, that implies that it is a high cost alternative. What is the reason that we should willing choose a higher cost, uneconomical alternative? To cushion these technologies, government would have to articially inflate the price of existing energy choices, i.e. higher taxes, fees, cap and trade systems to make the business case for green energy. Thus, there is not a strong economical argument here.
Another possibility is that green energy provides more value and, as such can command a higher price. But if that value were readily apparent, green would not need article price floors for its competing alternatives? People would see the value and be willing to pay the price premium.
So why would we make a choice that is neither economical either in lower cost or greater value? Simple. Blind faith in global warming. If global warming were so convincing, people would willingly pay the price premium and price supports would not be necessary. However, this is evidently not the case. The people in charge in Washington would willingly force a uneconomical choice on us based on their blind faith. Rigging the market is hardly capitalistic free markets. We are having the green economy forced upon because the market is certainly not demonstrating the level of fervor that the Obama administration has.
Discussion on:
Message 13 of 1
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
