The High Cost of Forcing the Future: Why Green Subsidies Are a Flawed Ideology
Democrat programs need your money and Government subsidies. Most, if not all of the solar panel companies that were started are belly up, and the EV products had to be subsidized.
If your ideology needs OPM (Other People's Money) it's bad ideology.
The High Cost of Forcing the Future: Why Green Subsidies Are a Flawed Ideology
In the grand tapestry of American economic philosophy, a central thread has long been the principle of self-reliance and the power of the free market. It is a principle built on a simple, yet profound truth: if a product or service is valuable, efficient, and desired by the public, it will succeed on its own merits. If it is not, no amount of government engineering can make it otherwise. This core tenet is what makes the current progressive push for a subsidized green transition so deeply concerning. As the critical observation goes, “Democrat programs need your money and Government subsidies. Most, if not all, of the solar panel companies that were started are belly up, and the EV products had to be subsidized.” This is not merely a critique of specific policy failures; it is a powerful indictment of an entire ideology that is fundamentally dependent on OPM—Other People’s Money.
The track record of government-backed green ventures reads like a chronicle of caution. In the last decade and a half, the landscape is littered with the ghosts of solar companies like Solyndra, which collapsed in 2011 after receiving a $535 million federal loan guarantee. They were not an anomaly. Abound Solar, Beacon Power, and a host of others followed a similar trajectory: a flash of hype, a river of taxpayer cash, and a quiet descent into bankruptcy. These were not companies out-competed in a vigorous marketplace; they were creatures of the state, propped up by a political agenda rather than sound business fundamentals.
The same story is unfolding, in slow motion, with the electric vehicle (EV) market. For years, purchasing an EV came with a significant check from the U.S. Treasury—a direct subsidy of up to $7,500 per vehicle, a clear signal that the market price was not one consumers were willing to bear on their own. Even with this artificial incentive, bolstered by state-level perks and a media narrative bordering on evangelism, EVs have struggled to achieve mainstream adoption without coercion. Automakers are now scaling back multi-billion-dollar investments as demand fails to meet politically-driven forecasts. The reality is that when the true cost of a product—from its premium sticker price to the logistical challenges of charging and range anxiety—is laid bare, consumers, left to their own devices, often choose the superior, market-tested alternative.
This relentless subsidization reveals a flawed ideology at its core. A sound idea, whether in technology or any other field, should be able to attract private investment based on its potential for profit and success. Venture capitalists and angel investors are not shy about funding innovation; they seek it out. The fact that the green energy transition requires such a massive, continuous infusion of taxpayer dollars is a glaring red flag. It indicates that the venture is not economically viable. The ideology behind it is one that distrusts the collective wisdom of millions of individual consumers and investors, instead placing its faith in the centralized planning of a bureaucratic elite. When your vision for the future cannot survive without mandating its adoption and confiscating wealth to pay for it, it is not a vision—it is a dictate.
The use of OPM is not a neutral act; it is a form of central planning that distorts the market and has real-world consequences. Every dollar taken from a taxpayer and funneled into a failing solar panel company or an unsold EV is a dollar that was not invested elsewhere. It is a dollar that could have been spent on groceries, saved for a child’s education, or invested in a small business with genuine growth potential. This misallocation of capital is an invisible tax on prosperity. It stifles the organic, bottom-up innovation that has always been the true engine of American progress. Instead of allowing the market to gradually develop better, cheaper, and more reliable technologies that people actually want to buy, the government picks winners and losers based on political favoritism and ideological fervor. The result is not innovation, but waste.
Furthermore, this model creates a dangerous cycle of dependency. Companies that become addicted to government subsidies have little incentive to become efficient, cut costs, or innovate in ways that truly serve the consumer. Their primary customer becomes the state, and their most important skill is lobbying, not engineering. This cronyism corrupts the relationship between business and government, eroding the trust in both institutions. It creates a class of corporate welfare queens who preach free markets while their hands are in the public till.
A conservative approach to energy and environmental progress stands in stark contrast. It is not an opposition to a cleaner environment or new technologies; conservatives, like all people, desire clean air and water and embrace genuine innovation. The difference lies in the method. The conservative philosophy advocates for an "all-of-the-above" energy strategy that harnesses America's abundant natural resources—from oil and natural gas to nuclear and, yes, where it makes economic sense, renewables. It trusts that as technology improves, the most efficient and cleanest sources will naturally gain market share without the need for heavy-handed intervention.
This philosophy also places its faith in American ingenuity, not government mandates. Breakthroughs in carbon capture, next-generation nuclear reactors, and advancements in battery technology are far more likely to come from the competitive pressure of the free market than from a government grant. The role of government should be to fund basic research, create a stable regulatory environment, and then get out of the way—not to bet the retirement savings of taxpayers on specific, politically-favored companies.
The ultimate question we must ask is: what kind of nation do we want to be? Do we want to be a nation where our economic landscape is shaped by the voluntary choices of free individuals, or by the decrees of a planning committee? The ideology that runs on OPM is inherently coercive. It is an admission that the people cannot be trusted to choose their own cars, power their own homes, or spend their own money. It replaces liberty with a soft tyranny of "we know best."
The graveyard of subsidized solar companies and the lots full of unsold, subsidized EVs are not just examples of government waste. They are monuments to a failed ideology. They stand as testament to the timeless principle that no government, no matter how well-intentioned, can decree prosperity or engineer a future that its citizens are unwilling to build for themselves. A vision that requires the constant confiscation and redistribution of Other People's Money is not a vision of progress, but a pathway to national decline. True and lasting advancement has always, and will always, be built on the foundation of freedom, not force.
#GreenNewDeal #Subsidies #Climatechange