If consuming less bad energy is a goal, then moving more citizens over to good energy is a viable part of that goal. To move more people over to good energy, there has to be more readily available. Hence good energy subsidies.
This is a comment on my essay. I am not certain that he read my entire essay. I am absolutely certain that he did not understand it. He certainly did not understand this paragraph, which may be the core point of the essay:
It may be true, as Greg Mankiw argues in his Pigou Club Manifesto, that higher taxes on bad energy are justified. Figuring out the optimum tax is a difficult challenge, even for the Pigou Club. However, once the correct tax is set, that by itself provides all the incentive that is needed to get people to switch to good energy. The tax on bad energy will raise the price that people are willing to pay for good energy. That higher price for good energy is all of the incentive that producers need to undertake the effort to provide more good energy.
Is this point not clear?