The skeptics are right to this extent: When cost matters—i.e. when the issue isn’t an urgent necessity but rather the choice among competing options—proponents of government action have a higher bar to clear. Typically, the stumbling block to innovation isn’t technology, but cost. Yes, China is offering subsidies to its domestic manufacturers that dwarf what Solyndra or any other U.S. firm received, and that tilts the competitive playing field. But even without the Chinese, Solyndra would have been in deep trouble. As Brad Plumer points out, citing Westinghouse Solar CEO Barry Cinnamon, Solyndra invented a solar panel that didn’t use silicon (unlike its competitors) and then got creamed on costs after silicon prices plunged.

This brings us to the nub of the matter. While a handful of innovative products may be able to make it on their own, the core argument for “green technology” is that the market price of fossil fuels doesn’t reflect their real costs: Taxpayers bear the burden of the defense spending needed to secure foreign oil supplies, and we pay both publicly and privately for the environmental consequences of fossil fuel consumption. But as long as these costs remain external, outside the market price, green alternatives will rarely, if ever, be commercially competitive. The real problem isn’t Solyndra; it’s a political system without the foresight or courage to enact a meaningful carbon tax, much of which could be used to replace current revenue sources that impede economic growth and job creation. Until we do, our quest for a long-term energy policy, now well into its fourth decade, will remain an exercise in futility.