I like the message - more innovation please. But the article contains some questionable passages. For example: "Both wind and solar technologies require trem

I like the message - more innovation please. But the article contains some questionable passages. For example: "Both wind and solar technologies require tremendous capital expenditures before they can be brought to the market and scale up to production. In contrast, a radically improved internal combustion engine could be easily produced with existing industrial capabilities and quickly dropped into the global car production cycle." This seems to indicate that the author believes that a radical design change could be easily produced. But who's to say that a radical design change wouldn't require radically different capabilities? And as far as I can tell, the ICE has definitely seen improvements in efficiency not only in years where there was government involvement. Sure, it hasn't been "disrupted" with another technology, but that doesn't mean there is no innovation. And what exactly is a "sexy technology"? How would a radical development in ICEs be less sexy than a radical development in battery tech or solar, or computing?