You are commenting on an article in which the US is deciding (and paying immense costs) in order not to do everything. The current administration is actively trying to squash several proven-valuable ways of converting non-renewable resources into renewable ones.

▲

epolanski 19 minutes ago | parent [-]

the current administration is the key word.

In any case, you can't expect stable policies in a country with a winner-takes-all democracy.

	▲	estearum a minute ago \| parent [-]
		Not sure how that's relevant to the topic here. Your initial comment seemed to imply that these actions are the rational downstream consequences of the US's incentives. Now you seem to be suggesting that maybe it's not, but it's just the actions of the current administration? Not sure what policy stability has to do with anything. If anything it's a further indictment of your point. A successful energy project will span multiple administrations to come to fruition. It takes just one administration to kill a project... as illustrated by TFA. This is not in fact explained by the US's incentives.