Hang on a second. Let's look at the full quote and then think for a minute. >Meanwhile Uncle Sam pours hundreds of millions in grants and loan guarantees into

Hang on a second. Let's look at the full quote and then think for a minute. >Meanwhile Uncle Sam pours hundreds of millions in grants and loan guarantees into half-baked "green" startups, an industrial policy tailor-made to attract charlatans and losers. Why are we content... allowing Washington to replace the judgment of millions of private investors with the whims of a handful of bureaucrats trying to score political points playing with taxpayers' money? That's a better version of the quote. The government could have a different policy. Leg #1: Tax the hell out of carbon emissions (since the price of energy doesn't include the harm of carbon emission). They could even lower other taxes and write poor Grandma a check. Behavior would change and any idea that will save energy will find investors. This is not enough though: Leg #2 Pay people to sequester carbon, as long as it can be verified scientifically. Nobody would undertake this activity without subsidy. Under this policy what role is there for government officials to decide what is the best technical means to reduce carbon emissions? Not much. Would it be less effective than current policy? I think it would be more effective. Why don't we have this policy? Two reasons: Government wants to be handing out the checks--one by one. They always opt for the solution which empowers them. It's human nature. The other reason: Voters. We all keep hanging on the dream of a technological fix coming out of nowhere at no cost. No price tomorrow is too high to pay for comfort today. Part of our sick values that promote consumption as the cure for every economic ill. I'll trust the voters more after they detox.