Following the money
There is an on-going debate around the globe on how much government money is needed to support cleaner energy technology, and whether it will matter in the long-run. Here's a brief summary of the arguments for and against renewable energy subsidies. Also, the question of how the research and development is paid for. Many of the tecnologies from algae to thin film solar are not "mature." There are potentially crucial breakthroughs based on continued research and discoveries.
Currently the U.S. along with much of Europe and China is embarked on a political path toward greater subsidies and consumer incentives favoring renewable enrergy. But there is legitimate concern this is another bubble. We oldsters remember the brief-lived solar boom in the 1970s, scuttled by waning government support and low energy prices. President Reagan took the solar panels off the White House, a clear political message.
Currently there are greentech companies totally market-supported, many more that are at least partially-funded by VC money. I've heard of none refusing any government aid or encouragement in form of customer tax rebates. Sorta like the governors of certain states saying they would not take the federal stimulus money. A movement without followers.
This plays into the argument about tax or some price on carbon pollution. Here's one argument that without carbon costs, greentech is doomed to fail in the marketplace. Fossil fuel companies get huge tax breaks on their use of diminishing resources that they "own." How did we decide that water and air are public resources but coal and oil are not?
One of the fine, indirect subsidies of the fossil fuel industry in America: they get to spew carbon dioxide, soot and other pollutants without paying for any of the resulting damage. They pollute with little cost until their coal ash causes an unavoidable mess like the recent one in Tennessee, then they just "tax" their customers. Just today it became clear the Tennessee Valley Authority will spend nearly a billion dollars to clean up the ash they lost control of. Would it perhaps have been both safer and cheaper to handle it carefully to begin with? But there was no coal ash regulation forcing responsibility and few organizations (even TVA, a NON-profit) will act carefully if they can legally cut corners. Human nature seems to be: take the money and run. Maybe that's why our ancestors invented laws before there were lawyers. [poll id="127"]