Sorry, ianqui, you won't get debunking from me on this one.

As I see it, if you start with the more or less universal model accepted by PO-aware people, that PO is real and is close enough to be at least a Real Concern, then the following conclusions seem (at least to me) to be inarguable:

  1. We need to develop and deploy alternative energy systems, FAST.  Waiting for the market to bring that about, via higher energy costs, is a recipe for disaster because it won't give us the needed lead time.

  2. Market prices for fossil fuels will rise, providing energy and other companies with all the incentives they need to continue production and finding new ways to be efficient.  No gov't subsidies are needed.

  3. Focusing all gov't incentives on alternatives has a very useful side effect in that it will help get out the message to the public about how serious the issue is, and that collective, coordinated action is needed to minimize the human and economic impact of PO.
Lou-I'm in total agreement on your points 2 & 3. On point 1: no, the market won't provide fast solutions because it will perceive development of alternatives as expensive and risky, probably with a poor ROI because of delayed payoffs.

But who is smart and unbiased enough to spearhead such an effort? Government has brought us debacles like the "synfuels" scams, where spraying a bit of diesel fuel onto your coal will net huge government subsidies.

Markets, when they work, provide beautiful practical solutions. Who do you nominate the be the wise, visible hand to guide us through this situation when the market won't work? Maybe Kenneth Lay is available-he understands market failures ...