> Well, that seems reasonable, so we should use the most effective and efficient methods to .. [do what people are strongly opposed to doing] Not sure why this

> Well, that seems reasonable, so we should use the most effective and efficient methods to .. [do what people are strongly opposed to doing] Not sure why this is so hard to understand, but people don't support these types of taxes and if you try to force them on people, you will be thrown out of power and all of your policies reversed by the blowblack, including the subsidies. In fact you will find even extra taxes piled onto "clean" power by the blowback. You can't just unleash a personal inner-dictator and try to force people to do something they have no desire to do. In a democracy, that is quite difficult. There is a reason why, despite 20 years of trying, the green movement has not been able to get this legislation passed. There is no reason to believe that merely with the passage of time, highly unpopular policies will become popular. What has gotten passed is subsidies for green energy. Subsidies are popular. And in a low IR environment, it's great opportunity to heavily invest in nuclear, hydro, and R&D for cheaper, cleaner energy sources that increase, rather than decrease, people's standard of living. The future is one of cheap, abundant power and increasing energy usage per capita, as has been the historical trend. Moreover historically power has always been subsidized, not taxed (on net). There is no future in an agenda of taxing or rationing energy.