Oil and gas have been subsidized since the beginning of times, airplanes and automobiles have been subsidized since their inventions. This is a transition, from what helped the world move to the industrial age which brought great progress and great damage to humans and the environment, to a post industrial age where we consciously figure out how to provide the necessary energy to the world while minimizing ecological and health damages in the process. What's wrong with that?
As far as I'm concerned? Well, to start...
1) It's far too idealistic. What happens when formidable free-riders game the system? Maybe they consider themselves simply "emerging"? Do we nuke them into oblivion? Colonize them? Shite, they might be more powerful.
A) I'm not comfortable with the variation in people's use of the word "subsidized". You can't just give a magic "boost" to something... it first has to be produced at some expense. We're talking micro level stuff. That expense is predominantly composed of human effort and ingenuity. And, if you believe in a person's natural right to their own body and being, then it'll be nice to acquire their effort and ingenuity in a non-compulsory way. Am I asking too much on that? I thought we abolished slavery? Should civil society extract whatever is "needed" using the coercion of some central authority or mob-like majority? That doesn't sound strictly ethical to me.
3) I'm also not comfortable with your use of the phrase "we consciously"... that implies some kind of collective conscious. How can that even exist outside of religion? Is this sci-fi, the star trek borg? Beam me up Scotty! Is that what government is supposed to be... a collective conscious? I don't think so.
4) 5) 6)9)FE)A
I mean, there's lots of what I see wrong with "it", unless it's the beginning of a macro fairy tale maybe
Last edited: