I wish they'd sell "green" honestly and without FUD or hype.
It is what it is. green(I hate that term, I prefer sustainable") energy, like electric cars, CAN stand on its own merits and even continue to command premium prices-but NOT if its sold with vapor, unicorn f@rts, well-wishes and lies.
All that does is p*ss people off and disappoint those who are truly giving the technology an honest go. It's better to sell a program truthfully, so people get what they expect, than to hype it up and have all your early adopters being disappointed.
Don't sell sustatinable programs as being "cheaper" if they're actually not-forget about long term and intangible future promises or breakthroughs. But you CAN sell on a history of improvement and use that to draw a possible breakthrough as a selling point.
But if after all that, you can't show any benefit, then government subsidy is NOT the way to go. However I don't believe this to be the case-we just need to get the profitteers and "true believers" off the podium.
For example, try something like this: "Wind power-it's not for everyone. When it works, it produces power with minimum emissions, but don't expect it to work all the time. We're working on improvements-last year our best turbine produced X kilowatts over the year, while our newest one today produces X + Y kilowatts. Our testing, financed by the admittedly expensive rates we're charging, lead us to believe next year's unit can generate X+Y+Z and reduce maintenance costs as well- you can see our research at nosmokeandmirrors.com"
Be honest, and people WILL pay. Not all, but enough. Blind us with brilliance, don't baffle us with Bullsh*t. companies like ZAP promised us the world with their golf cart EVs, hiding the flaws behind greenwashing and advertising. Nissan says "here's an electric car, run it and see if it works for you."-and I've personally witnessed dozens of Leafs while Ie seen TWO Model S's in the wild (and I live less than 20 miles from the factory!) Tesla seems to be losing sight of that with the NYT debacle-they created perception about the Model S that isn't being met, even though the technology performs as designed. Had their marketers and shills been open up front and honest about "you're gonna have issues in the cold" with as much fervor as "rich movie stars and moguls say their Model S will save the planet", then the NYT article would have offended and surprised nobody. Jus like no one expects most cars to run far if there's a hole in the gas tank.
computers, cell phones and even gas cars were crap when they first came out. They didn't get better because their producing companies claimed they were already perfect and needed no improvement. People knew the limitations of being an early adopter. Now look where we are.
Sustainable energy needs to follow their example.