>>10496295>I'm asking you what you meant.I've explained it to you several times. I genuinely don't understand what YOU don't understand.
>No, it goes org->lobbyist.Yes, org->lobbyist->govt.
>Yet you can't provide a single example of this happening.No, I can't, and I never said I could. I only said there was an incentive.
>it doesn't tell us that or encompasses all climate research.It doesn't, but the fact that all other groups have their own, non-climate goals does. But this all doesn't matter, and by "Sweden didn't spend much", I meant on infrastructure and generation, not research. This is a tangent that we shouldn't have went on. I apologize for not correcting this sooner.
>It's logically dangerous. Sweden benefits greatly from the ability to rely on hydro power. The US does not.This is a good point, and I agree but it does not invalidate what I said. It might be possible for some US states to use hydro, it might not for others. Hydro will obviously be needed where it can be used.
>spent money on renewablesAlso true, and I should have explained this sooner. While they did HAVE subsidies, the market largely didn't take advantage of them (solar + wind combined make up less than 10% of energy generated). Which goes to show that they really aren't worth it, even with subsidies.
>tax exemptionsI don't know which source you're referring to, but mine says "The main incentive for the use of renewable energy sources is a quota system". That's not exemption, that's a quota system. It punishes non-renewable energy use, and was largely redeemed though hydro (see pic). This isn't strictly speaking a tax or a subsidy, it's its own thing.
>Also I love how somehow putting a tax on carbon is "the private sector" but subsidies are not. Makes no sense.All the investments were done by the private sector because the Swedish energy market is privatized. The subsidies helped those investments a little, but most of it came about because of the quotas.
