Disagree with what? Yes it seems to be that energy capture/conversion and redeployment (batteries or fuel cells) are a critical component.
Do you have a better course of action?? besides give up!
Yes, let the free market find the "magic battery", better fuel cell, or the next unknown technological break through.
I think the part you missed or misinterpreted is: Early Adopters. The subsidy will be small. Why? because most will not take the step. Why, because it is new and unproven yet.
Why would we want to subsidize an industry that is unproven (ie, involving batteries)? Or are you advocating we subsidize every non-fossil fuel based idea? And where do you think the energy comes from to recharge batteries? Answer: fossil fuel based power plants.
Look at the subsidy as priming the pump for a future industry (many industries).
I don't like the government trying to choose which racehorse will be the winner - their record is terrible (ie, ethanol, wind generators)
Consider hybrid purchases which are more proven and past the early adopter stage.... but still not mainstream. Most people do not buy them yet! Why? because they are more expensive. However it is at the sustainable stage. The hybrid risk is much lower... it could leverage existing technologies... it was just a matter of tuning them.
That logic does not compute in my brain. I don't think government subsidies can spur any industry. Yes, more people will buy if they are subsidized, but they stop buying when the subsidy is taken off. For example, the cash for clunkers didn't spur the auto industry.
Theoretically it would happen with pure capitalism. But the reality is the investment is huge, there is great risk of many failures before success is experienced. American business is caught in a short-term investment return trap (because investors will punish if numbers are not met).
History has proven you wrong for 200 years. Where there is a good idea, capitalism will find a way to fund it. Henry Ford didn't need a subsidy. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn't need a subsidy. That's what guys like Rupert
Murdoch are for.. to fund ventured capitalism.
The amount of resources that need to be marshaled to solve all of the parts of the problem are huge and complex (not just technology but infrastructure that does not exist).
So you think the government should build what? A distribution system for every kind of alternative power source... hydrogen, electricity, natural gas?
You can be assured that all of the worlds govt's (that have any chance of being a 21st century competitor) are funding those effort through various means. Our competition is not simply other international businesses.
Give me an example. Japan funded Beta Max VCR and it was a flop
The stakes are big and countries will be winners or losers. paying out the nose or intellectual property usage... patents and possibly product.
Maybe yes, maybe no. If another country finds some magic solution as a clean substitute for fossil fuel, then the American consumer pays. But look at the IPad, etc. Other countries are paying Apple. That's how the system works. We are not a socialist country and I don't want Washington DC trying to pick winners and loosers with taxpayer's money.
There are many issues. If you narrow them down to one dimension and one aspect your comment make senses to me. Put it all together into the complex multi-dimensional problem it is... and there is more to it than (govt shouldn't).
Nope! Government shouldn't get involved in private enterprise.