[bawolff]

Part of R&D is taking what works and abandoning what doesn't. Requiring companies to commit to a path forever in order to get a subsidiary is counter productive. We want companies to make green solutions that actually work. That requires trying things that might not work out in the end. We don't want them to continue an experiment if it is obviously not working just because the initial stage was gov funded.

[xg15]

Did the government actually declare the plan over or did independent studies actually show it didn't work?

The problem is who decides whether a solution works or doesn't work? Because the goals of the general public, government and private companies may not necessarily be aligned here. Taking the govt subsidiary is submitting to the government's goals in that regard - so if the company drops out again because that project isn't conductive to its own goals, that's all fine, but it should indeed pay back the subsidiaries.

[throwaway11460]

Subsidies typically have rules, such as "will employ X people for Y years" or "will provide the service for X years". Subsidies are also very often paid out after the fact, but even if not, this is a very easy court case (probably not even that - just administer a fine).

So if they're closing down now, it's very likely because the date has passed and they met all requirements.

(I have experience with subsidies, though in EU)

[bawolff]

If incentives are that misaligned it will never work.

The way it should work is company puts some money in, gov puts some money in. Company money still on the line to incentivise actually doing a good job, gov money just lowers the threshold a bit. If no company money on the line, they will just pretend to do the thing.

[tw04]

That would land better if shell weren’t abandoning hydrogen stations and ev charging while being led by a CEO who has publicly stated they’re doubling down on oil.

If you want to pull out of something like this after getting subsidies you should absolutely be punished. They’re putting profits above the future of our planet. And don’t give me any nonsense about shareholders, government exists to keep companies like shell in check.

I feel like people would be defending standard oil in 2023 “because capitalism”.

https://electrek.co/2023/06/30/shell-renewables-head-steps-d...

[bawolff]

Companies are always going to chase money, that is their nature. If we want to save the planet we need to make incentives aligned so companies want to do that.

Bemoaning capitalism does nothing to save the planet. The world exists as it is, not as we'd like it to be. Solutions need to work within the system, otherwise they are just a distraction.

[asadotzler]

Nah, we don't have to do shit that companies like or find aligned. We can make regulations they hate and yet they still must follow. This idea that we have to appease them into cooperation is some late stage capitalist bullshit and it's surprising to see so many on a hacker forum not just treading but defending the corporate line. Sad.

[bawolff]

Regulation is aligning incentives - companies dont want to pay a fine so they do what you want them to.

What doesn't work is setting things up so the company benefits from the thing you don't want them to do, and then being surprised when the inevitable happens.

[tw04]

I’m not bemoaning capitalism, I’m suggesting government should do their job. Which includes taking back subsidies if not punishing companies that take OUR money and then pursue actions directly contradicting what they took the money for.