Taking Europe versus China, California versus Texas, it seems like social pressure is less effective than markets. Let markets build the power source they want to build and lo and behold you get lots of solar and wind and batteries.
Solar is historically a great example where public / private collaboration actually had a place. Even if today it’s time to let market forces work.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/02/stre...
How do markets build infrastructure as large as an LNG terminal without the government tipping the scales with various guarantees? How do you build a literal coastline of refineries without government clearing the way with permissive regulations? How can you say "let markets figure it out" when the US military is the acquisition department of Halliburton's Iraqi joint venture?
Pretending "markets can figure it out if we just remove government subsidies" is hopelessly naiive. Geopolitics is mostly energy policy.
Nobody argued as much. My point is the net effect of social pressure on the energy transformation has been costly—financially and politically—for relatively little bang.
A whole class of parasites who have made their lives as highwaymen on the densest energy source (outside of uranium) -- that literally comes out of the ground -- have spent at least the last 20 years actively suppressing alternatives.
In some places (see Alberta, Canada), they have literally outlawed renewable developments.
In this context political advocacy, education, and subsidy remain absolutely imperative.
There is no "free market" way out of the current situation regardless of how economically viable solar is. In the real world markets and power are intrinsically linked.
It's also actually also an emergency
Yet somehow these opponents have been ham fisted when it comes to opposing the projects which make commercial sense?
> In this context political advocacy, education, and subsidy remain absolutely imperative
Agree. But the bans were counterproductive.
> There is no "free market"
You're the only one in this thread who's brought up free markets.
> It's also actually also an emergency
In a sense. I'd underscore, again, that the breathless activism did approximately nothing–the actual gains came from China pursuing national-security interests and market forces driving the deployment and development of solar, wind and batteries.
The subsidies for solar in places like Germany in the 2000's were crucial for the insane solar cost curve we have today. Those subsidies primarily came from "breathless activism" IMO.
Making it illegal (or expensive, via outsized taxes) to burn fossil fuels would ultimately just be another change in the rules of the market -- players will optimize within that space and find the best way to deliver energy and other services within those constraints (assuming enforcement is such that they can't just skirt the laws -- enforcement is also part of the market design).
One can frame this as "incorporating externalities" in order to help marketist ideologues swallow it, but the audience for that is almost entirely composed of people with second homes on islands with tax-cheating-based economies. Normal people are fine with the explanation of "this would have horrible and unpredictable consequences for the world your children are inheriting, so we're making it illegal".
Social awareness and pressure produced the government action necessary to incubate the early markets and seed research. It helped to spur the armies of young researches set about improving solar generation, wind generation, power storage, electric motors, and even LEDs.
Yeah, it's "obvious" now the economics make sense for producers to build wind and solar farms. Or yeah, purchasing LEDs is a no-brainer now why on earth would anyone want to incandescent bulbs; that's boomer tech.
(Unlike my LED bulbs though, I will turn an incandescent off every time I step away from it.)