The nascent renewable energy industry needs some insulation from the violent and churning storms of the prevailing economic climate. Investors need to have some confidence in their ability to do long term planning, and if they keep getting tossed this way and that and getting mixed messages from a chaotic market, they will simply recoil and shy away from risking involvement. We cannot afford to let that happen.
Like any fledgling new thing that is worth a damn, sometimes you've just got to be the penguin and sit on that egg while it incubates. It is a specious argument / failed idealogy that we should just step back and take a hands off approach to important developments that affect the fate of mankind. I'm simply not convinced that a pure laissez-faire approach to our energy future is the way we want to go. There are plenty of practical, real world precedents for where a laissez-faire approach does not only not work, but where it could in fact be cataclysmic.
Consider using a laissez-faire approach to replacing the Bay Bridge, for example. Certain complex and far reaching objectives require long term planning. There are occasions where design / planning are required in order to achieve a long term goal. If, as a society, we form a vision of where things need to be ten, twenty, or thirty years from now, it is not unreasonable to work out a strategy to ensure that those goals are achieved and that the plan is not derailed along the way.
With this in mind, it occurs to me that a strategic approach is needed. A clear example of a strategic approach vs. a laissez-faire approach is in how one approaches the subject of energy efficiency. Many thinkers in the renewable / cleantech space don't question for a moment the need for technological innovations in energy efficiency - across the board. It's gospel. But, from a certain perspective, if one is trying to effect a rapid - rather than a protracted - switchover from a dwindling fossil fuel resource to renewable sources of energy, the last thing one wants to do is allow energy efficiency technologies coming online during the decline of the limited resource to detract from the price competitive appeal of the renewable sources.
Energy efficiency has a place, and a time, but in some ways it can also buy time for existing fossil fuel sources - not desirable. It would be much better, for example, to develop energy efficiency technologies that are closely coupled to renewable energy technologies - and electricity in general - rather than efficiency that supports our continued use of fossil fuels. Good planning can allow energy efficiency development to be disproportionately / asymmetrically supportive of the switchover to renewables, rather than a thorn in its side by being undiscriminating. I would much rather see a disruptive, tipping point transformation to electric transportation than a drawn-out, gasoline-transportation-on-life-support-for-decades transformation.
Saying that economics can't (or even shouldn't) be controlled by strategy driven policies is about as sensible as arguing that a complex structure like a bridge should just be able to come about naturally of its own accord. Sometimes you have to decide that you want a specific outcome and then figure out the strategy for achieving that outcome. I'm not a fan of just letting the market do whatever it wants to address our energy needs, and then - in fifty years - whatever we get is what we get. This is too important of an issue to leave to the next-fiscal-quarter mindset that besets our corporations.
Strategy necessarily implies waging a battle and not just following the watercourse way. It would be naive for the cleantech industry to pretend that it's not in a war with the fossil fuels industry. Wars are won on good strategy.