I was reading an an editorial in the Economist this morning entitled, "Green dreams." The author of the editorial raises some legitimate concerns about the future of green power for investors given the government subsidies used for promoting it. My knee-jerk reaction was to scoff at this criticism. After all, do we have an option for government subsidies to jump-start alternative energy when our planet's future may depend on it? Don't we need government subsidies to keep alternative energy competitive with fossil fuels? Yet, I then realized that the author had some valid points. The editorial raises the fact that a carbon tax might be a much better option for boosting alternative energy. It makes sense; why not tax those industries putting out most of the climate changing carbon dioxide? The editorial notes that with government subsidies, we are putting faith in our politicians to support alternative energy. Yet, what if the constituents dislike the subsidies in the future? What happens to alternative energy then? We are counting on our politicians to pick green power winners, which may not always be the case. Take Germany, for example. Its government has purchased numerous solar panels due to subsidies, yet the panels would work better in sunnier climates. The point of the article seems to be that we should be thrilled with our government's current boost of alternative energy, but that we should not count on its interest always being there. What happens to investors then? More importantly, what happens to our planet then? These are definitely important points to consider.