I’m not sure I understand the context here.

If we’re now going to add additional costs to do the same work to change incentives, that to me seems to be a top-down approach to governing, which seems like either socialism or fascist (two sides of the same coin).

It’s pure socialism, it’s just garden-variety douchebag asshatery.

*Idea!* When you’re in a serious recession, punish people who produce things and create jobs! That way it’ll suck equally for everybody!

Win!

And now I welcome the arguments that this amounts to socialism.

Nice one. Socialism, schmoecialism. What’s socialism got to do with it beyond a name and a pigeonhole.

I’ll tell you what it amounts to: it amounts to substantially higher energy costs for Americans.

One can construct a defensible argument for such policies as you describe primarily on a moral basis. And that’s fine, if that’s your bag. But what is much harder is to construct any argument for such policies on the basis of fiscal wisdom.

American can, if we wish, make a commitment to favoring what are currently less viable and more costly alternative forms of energy prior to the point where the mass market adopts them for the common reason of cost efficiency. If we do this, it will cost all of us a lot of money, and it will reduce American productivity at a time when other nations are already challenging us.

Here’s the thing: it boils down to the”early adopter” paradigm, which we should all be familiar with. A plasma TV cost 10 grand a decade ago, now its shrunk to less than 10% of that. We know how it works for electric gadgets. Less well acknowledged but equally obvious is the premium price America pays for pharmaceuticals in order to be the first ones to get this stuff at ultra-premium prices.

The same thing will certainly hold for alternative sources of energy. Again, let me stress that I have no objection if Americans themselves make the choice to be early adopters for moral reasons. I simply wish to make it crystal clear that our nation will collectively pay a substantial price for this choice.

I have no respect for carefully constructed yet misleading arguments that suggest we will create moral benefits for the entire globe _AND_ realize fiscal benefits from privileging alternative sources of energy. Early adopters always get poned. Period. That can’t be dismissed.

Possibly this effort will marginally hasten the day when all of us enjoy energy that results in substantially less harm to our environment. My point is that by making drastic policy changes now in order to make this happen. America is volunteering to pay the majority of the bill for it.

My personal opinion is that its not necessary or prudent for America to volunteer for this job.

And now I welcome the arguments that this amounts to socialism.

Wow, nice one. Socialism, schmoecialism.

I’ll tell you what it amounts to: it amounts to substantially higher energy costs for Americans.

One can construct a defensible argument for such policies as you describe primarily on a moral basis. And that’s fine, if that’s your bag. But what is much harder is to construct any argument for such policies on the basis of fiscal wisdom.

American can, if we wish, make a commitment to favoring what are currently less viable and more costly alternative forms of energy prior to the point where the mass market adopts them for the common reason of cost efficiency. If we do this, it will cost all of us a lot of money, and it will reduce American productivity at a time when other nations are already challenging us.

Here’s the thing: it boils down to the”early adopter” paradigm, which we should all be familiar with. A plasma TV cost 10 grand a decade ago, now its shrunk to less than 10% of that. We know how it works for electric gadgets. Less well acknowledged but equally obvious is the premium price America pays for pharmaceuticals in order to be the first ones to get this stuff at ultra-premium prices.

The same thing will certainly hold for alternative sources of energy. Again, let me stress that I have no objection if Americans themselves make the choice to be early adopters for moral reasons. I simply wish to make it crystal clear that our nation will collectively pay a substantial price for this choice.

I have no respect for carefully constructed yet misleading arguments that suggest we will create moral benefits for the entire globe _AND_ realize fiscal benefits from privileging alternative sources of energy. Early adopters always get poned. Period. That can’t be dismissed.

Possibly this effort will marginally hasten the day when all of us enjoy energy that results in substantially less harm to our environment. My point is that by making drastic policy changes now in order to make this happen. America is volunteering to pay the majority of the bill for it.

My personal opinion is that its not necessary or prudent for America to volunteer for this job.

And now I welcome the arguments that this amounts to socialism.

Gee, nice one. Socialism, schmoecialism.

I’ll tell you what it amounts to: it amounts to substantially higher energy costs for Americans.

One can construct a defensible argument for such policies as you describe primarily on a moral basis. And that’s fine, if that’s your bag. But what is much harder is to construct any argument for such policies on the basis of fiscal wisdom.

American can, if we wish, make a commitment to favoring what are currently less viable and more costly alternative forms of energy prior to the point where the mass market adopts them for the common reason of cost efficiency. If we do this, it will cost all of us a lot of money, and it will reduce American productivity at a time when other nations are already challenging us.

Here’s the thing: it boils down to the”early adopter” paradigm, which we should all be familiar with. A plasma TV cost 10 grand a decade ago, now its shrunk to less than 10% of that. We know how it works for electric gadgets. Less well acknowledged but equally obvious is the premium price America pays for pharmaceuticals in order to be the first ones to get this stuff at ultra-premium prices.

The same thing will certainly hold for alternative sources of energy. Again, let me stress that I have no objection if Americans themselves make the choice to be early adopters for moral reasons. I simply wish to make it crystal clear that our nation will collectively pay a substantial price for this choice.

I have no respect for carefully constructed yet misleading arguments that suggest we will create moral benefits for the entire globe _AND_ realize fiscal benefits from privileging alternative sources of energy. Early adopters always get poned. Period. That can’t be dismissed.

Possibly this effort will marginally hasten the day when all of us enjoy energy that results in substantially less harm to our environment. My point is that by making drastic policy changes now in order to make this happen. America is volunteering to pay the majority of the bill for it.

My personal opinion is that its not necessary or prudent for America to volunteer for this job.