C:  Since this is an economics blog, it is worth reciting some basic economic literacy:

Speaking of “costs”, “subsidies”, “market forces” “rigged markets” makes no logical sense at all in such a situation. It is gibberish based on specious, circular reasoning and falsehoods. Not understanding that is not understanding basic economics.

It’s like the old Jack Benny joke – The mugger says – “Your money or your life” Benny says – “I’m thinking”. Or more aptly, worrying about costs of renewables vs fossil fuels in a global warming scenario is like worrying about your wallet getting wet when you are drowning. It confuses means and ends.

The idea of global warming is that the true cost of all the fossil fuels we’ve burnt is enormously higher than previously thought. So oil, coal etc have been and are fantastically subsidized, enormously more than renewables ever have been. In any case, monetary costs are a side effect of government spending and taxation. BY DEFINITION, all markets are “rigged” – an unrigged “free” market is logically, not merely empirically impossible. Monetary costs cannot be used to ultimately determine what is spent and taxed – for that reverses causes and effects.

If global warming is anything like as bad as most climatologists say, then removing “subsidies” from renewables – is in reality subsidizing fossil fuels and enormously destructive activities using them. It is lunacy, not something to be celebrated. Of course that renewables are declining in real costs even in this environment is something to be celebrated – it is saying that even with today’s enormous and insane subsidies to them, fossil fuels are becoming “uneconomic.”

Me:  Precisely, and that is why having a publicly administered non-profit national and central banking system that would be at arm’s length from the other three branch’s of government is essential if we are going to ever get serious about issues like global warming, and stabilizing an economy already plagued by lack of monetary democracy and that has no where to go but get worse with the only getting started disruptive force of AI unless of course we awaken to an intelligent implementation of the new paradigm of Abundantly Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting at the point of retail sale.

Also, “In any case, monetary costs are a side effect of government spending and taxation.”

Yes, under the current paradigm this is correct…because a FLOW of Debt Only is an INHERENTLY BURDENSOME FLOW of cost. This is not the crank idea that interest is the be all and end all of our economic and monetary problems. It is the recognition that a monopolistic paradigm of Debt Only tied to profit making systems which will always attempt to cut costs IS UNECONOMIC…..unless a new paradigm of Abundantly Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting is integrated into that system.