[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Well, yes. But what is economical is not always desirable and, of course it depends on what you measure.

Burning coal without any filters in the short term is economical, but the damage caused via acid rain and other polluntants is harmful in the long term.

At the moment, using imported oil might appear economical, but the subsequent threats to our national security by dependence on foreign energy combined with the transfer of wealth to hostile or only nominally friendly nations may well be a bad long-term investment.

Thus, it depends on time horizon whether you think a government internvention in the market makes economic sense. In other words, is it cheaper for us to pay for it now, or will it be cheaper for our children/grandchildren to pay for the it and the consequences of delay in the future.

The point of the article is that option now exists. It is up to experts and leaders to make the necessary decisions for the future of a country. Once again, IMHO, based on current geo-political circumstances and the direction of the global economy, I think it is a decision worth taking.

[DB]

If we truly started using far less oil (enough less to matter as far as our dependency goes) due to government intervention, the price of oil would collapse. The possible result being our foreign competitors could gain huge advantages in cost of production while we're stuck with higher cost "alternative energy sources". Free markets are best at filling supply and demand. That doesn't mean the public can't put reasonable restrictions on acid rain and the like produced from burning coal. But those restrictions do factor into the overall costs of burning coal. And again the markets should decide.