[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Since we know fossil fuels become increasingly expensive to extract as the easier to reach stores are depleted, and because we want to pollute less and preserve resources for the future, that means we need systems that create competition in the development of alternatives. Note that we want competition, not coercion by corrupt know-nothing politicians who dictate what the specific solution will be. Electric cars are not "the goal". They may become part of the systems that work towards the objective of human flourishing, but they aren't an end unto themselves.

Some systems that might foster competition and exploration include laws and regulatory agencies that present minimum necessary constraints. There are risks, and people will die in pursuit of innovation, because the frontier is not safe. The notion that we can't proceed unless there is zero risk, or no impact on nature, is absurd.

We might consider "x-prizes" to encourage development of technology to solve certain problems. For projects that could reasonably be funded by public investment, this is an appropriate incentive system.

Finally, some projects just require public funds because there is no expectation of a reasonable return on investment, so private funding will never happen. An example of this might be fusion power research, or next gen fission reactors. The benefit to society for developing these things is immense, but the individual risk/reward motive makes it unappealing to private investors.

That's a good point. Subsidizing real science, instead of funding pointless researches about identitarian BS or any other random stupidity which doesn't benefit anyone, would make sense. Then, based on real-world results which could be achievable while not pushing the average Joe into bankruptcy, the bureucrats could have reasonable benchmarking for regulations.