Very few people are falling for this stuff anymore. You can only go so far destroying the landscape in southern Europe replacing thousands of olive trees by “green” solar panels, before the population calls out the insanity and vote for parties that are against it, no matter how bad are some of their other policies.
We're the end stage of utilitarianism: getting rid of centuries old C3 energy producers of alkanes because the grove is "inefficient" and loudly extolling the beauty of pieces of black glass.
The solutions to the energy problems are largely solved and have been since the 70s, conservation.
Meanwhile, guys like Gates have been bemoaning cow's rectal emissions while AI (ie Microsoft, of which he is a major shareholder) is becoming the larger consumer of energy to train AI.
That was the argument you were going to make, right? I mean, why subsidize the winner?
/s
The thing is, you will be one of the first complaining about how undemocratic our governments are, when the Western world turns completely right.
Now, that is be good sarcasm. People like you explaining that the the will of the majority is undemocratic.
Sometimes the desired outcome (less of the countryside being covered in solar panels, wind farms, or giant pit mines, in this case) isn't most economically efficient. It's up to the people whether it's worth spending tax money to achieve this. I personally don't mind wind and solar farms (or nuclear, for that matter), but my region isn't what anyone would consider "scenic."
You can choose not to subsidize nuclear, in which case you'll get more windmills and solar farms. This is exactly what the person you originally replied to doesn't want.
You can remove the subsidies of nuclear and solar, in which case solar is still profitable.
If you remove the subsidies of mass transit and individual transit, neither is profitable anymore.