Well, we know that leaving things up to choice and the market isn't working, so there has to be some incentivising. Whether it's by subsidising the clean energy or taxing the dirty energy, or a bit of both is the big question. Consumers will by and large make their decisions on price, and if GHG producing systems are cheaper that's what consumers (including industrial consumers) will go for. There is a cost either way (subsidy or taxing) of making clean energy more attractive. Personally, I think the people who choose to use dirty energy should be required to pay for it directly, that way the burden of cost falls on the user of the dirty product, thus conversion to clean energy becomes more attractive by being relatively cheaper than dirty energy, but still being economically viable without the need for corporate welfare. However the tax collected from dirty energy users needs to be ring-fenced for use in helping out R&D to produce clean energy more cheaply.
“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix
