government should intervene in the transition to alternative fuels

another example of why private investors wouldn't invest. because it might be considered a 60 or 70% chance of becoming ht next fuel, but it's still an uncertainty that investors wouldn't want to invest in given the potential bad risks coming to fruition. so we have society notably poor and middle class squandering its wealth until the pockets of the rich are hurt, the driver of change? and this is being allowed when the odds are in that fuels favor, we are just sitting back letting the economy hurt itself? even if i haven't established that those are the odds, doesn't con at least admit that they could be the odds, and government involvement could be the best bet? i dn't argue specific numbers, but i argue it's clear that a fuel will prevail in the end, that is renewable. that means we should be acting to further that change. how we pay for it is a side point to whether we should do it. we can cut other programs to pay for it. i'm sure con wouldn't be opposed to that. the point we're debating it has to do with whether it's the best efficiency or not, the right thing or not assuming we'd take care of the finances behind it. con argues it is unclear whether that catch 22 was clear. no demand cause no infrastruction, no infrastruction cause no demand. that observation is self evident. if there was a demand, investors would invest. but note the issue here. if it was a demand that seemed decently profitable. most companies don't want to because there's too many uncertainties. i've shown that it's certainly possible the economy at large could benefit if we switched sooner, but it's not happening due to self interested investors. so yes, we would be forcing an artificial demand by driving down costs to consumers and suppliers. but that is a good thing, because it will stimulate a change quicker that should come, but is being hampered by a market that doesn't act truly efficiently on its own, here due to self interested investors and a lack of information, or a lack of certitude. the government should roll the dice, to at best catalyze a change that comes to fruition due to the government involvement, or at worst to act as a hedge, to say even if we lost money on the bets we made, we are okay with that. the odds are high enough and clear enough for us to take action sooner than later. we don't have to take taxes from everyone, so if it was merely a tax credit, what is wrong with that? if people are doing things that are potential or actually are beneficial to society, it's entirely fair to not tax them as much. if we don't, then that is government involvement. but also if we accepted doing tax credits, why not spend a little money too? if we allow one we shouldn't be so hesitant about doing the other. sure private investment will be best done when it is using its own money, but there are plenty of incentives to do it right, even when the government is paying some too. such as the potential for profit, and the potential for loss of the private money that the government does use. aa while we can bicker about how high the odds are for a certain fuel, it seems clear that merely not taxing someone as much at the least is something we should do, which is government involvement. we are not bound to tax people so if we choose not to, for legitimate reasons, we are not just doing as we could. con points out that nonrenewables are cheaper. yes, they are, but that doesn't mean we should just allow things to played out as is until that is no longer the case, in a free market way. i'm arguing we internve to increase efficiency, save the classes none y that would be better spent stimulating the economy at large. if we wait till the rich are hurt, the overall economy is hurt for it.