This reads as somewhat one sided to me, as the expected thing is for the subsidies to be reduced over time.
It feels like journalism often gets two scare stories out of renewables or clean energy subsidies, one when they are introduced and another when they are phased out.
The recent reporting around Chinese EV regularly tries to catastrophise the reduction in subsidies which were only ever intended to kick start the market.
Of course some subsidies are cut too early or too fast for political reasons, some like carbon fees and internalising pollution costs should probably rise over time.
But if they're not interested in that level of conversation then the story is effectively just noise.
> is at the end of the day just another means to attract eyeballs to sell ads to
If you’re poor (or stupid), yes, this is the journalism you’re limited to, and that’s a problem. For everyone else, quality subscription-based journalism is an option.
It feels like journalism often gets two scare stories out of renewables or clean energy subsidies, one when they are introduced and another when they are phased out.
The recent reporting around Chinese EV regularly tries to catastrophise the reduction in subsidies which were only ever intended to kick start the market.
Of course some subsidies are cut too early or too fast for political reasons, some like carbon fees and internalising pollution costs should probably rise over time.
But if they're not interested in that level of conversation then the story is effectively just noise.