The future of affordable, reliable, clean energy should not depend on the government. Instead, it should depend on consumers’ choices. While governments can help by enacting policies that empower and reduce barriers to clean energy development, businesses and individual consumers will be the fundamental drivers of change, demanding cleaner, more sustainable energy.

Too often, policymakers have attempted to boost clean energy through subsidies, mandates, and burdensome regulations on its competitors. Governments have implemented policies, such as regulations, technology-specific tax credits, and grants, to spur a clean energy transition. However, relying on government support doesn’t lead to lasting change. Many of these tax credits were intended for infant industries, but have stuck around for decades. The real driver of clean energy growth is the demand from consumers — people like you and me. 

Take the example of electric cars. Ten years ago, electric vehicles (EVs) were seen as a niche product, undesirable to most people. However, over time, demand from consumers increased, and more people began to want them. Today, EVs no longer need government tax credits to survive. Competition and consumer demand, not taxpayer-funded incentives, are what drive real innovation, bringing down their cost and making them more competitive with gasoline powered vehicles. 

When Toyota introduced the Prius in the late 1990s, hybrid vehicles were a novelty, and most people were skeptical about their performance and reliability. However, Toyota didn’t wait for the government to mandate cleaner vehicles—they invested in technology that appealed to environmentally conscious consumers and delivered real fuel savings. As gas prices rose and awareness of climate change increased, more people opted for hybrids due to their efficiency and cost-effectiveness. This growing consumer demand encouraged other automakers to follow suit, eventually leading to a broad market shift toward fuel-efficient and lower-emission vehicles. It wasn’t regulation that sparked this transformation—it was the power of consumer choice, proving that impactful change often starts with what people want, not what they’re told to buy.

The same thing happened with solar energy. In the past, installing solar panels was expensive and only a viable option for wealthier people. However, as solar technology has improved and become more affordable, an increasing number of people are opting to install solar panels on their homes. Solar is now a mature technology, with prices falling by more than 80 percent over the past decade, and it no longer needs heavy-handed government support to thrive. Continuing to subsidize solar through tax credits and renewable portfolio standards simply props up special interests and distorts the energy market. If solar is as competitive as its advocates claim and the evidence suggests it is, then it should succeed based on consumer choice, not government mandates.

The future of clean energy isn’t about the government forcing people to go green. And removing subsidies for mature clean energy technology is not an anti-green stance. Producers and consumers will be motivated to go green if it lowers their energy bills and benefits the environment. More and more homeowners are installing solar panels—not because they have to, but because it just makes sense.

There are many other examples of this consumer-driven shift. When people started asking for more energy-efficient products, companies responded accordingly. The rise of energy-efficient appliances, LED light bulbs, and smart thermostats are all examples of businesses responding to consumer demand for sustainability. These products help people save money while also reducing energy consumption. It’s true that today many of these appliances are subject to government efficiency regulations from agencies like the Department of Energy. But it’s important to remember that the push for better efficiency began before government standards were imposed; it started because consumers wanted to save energy and cut their bills. That’s why preserving consumer choice is critical. Efficiency should be an option, not a mandate. In appliances, that might mean giving people the choice to use an “eco-mode” setting when they want to, rather than forcing everyone to wait two hours for a dishwasher cycle every time. Innovation should serve the customer, not bureaucratic checklists.

When people choose to adopt clean energy, businesses have an incentive to provide it. This kind of market-driven change is more powerful and sustainable than relying on government mandates or subsidies. It allows for innovation, competition, and the development of new technologies. Waiting for the government could delay the adoption of clean energy, while consumer demand drives faster progress. Furthermore, the government could steer taxpayer and private resources to specific technologies while other promising ventures miss out. 

However, the future of clean energy does not mean the government has no role to play. Policymakers should develop policies that facilitate the adoption of clean energy. They can also remove barriers by modernizing regulations and improving permitting processes that slow down clean technologies. However, these policies should support, rather than replace, the actions of consumers. It is essential to note that government mandates, such as requiring people to purchase electric cars or solar panels, can also backfire. Government mandates can frustrate consumers, hinder innovation and competition, and slow the adoption of clean energy. Instead, they should create a freer economy and allow consumers to decide if and when to transition. This is the future of clean energy: consumers making informed, conscious choices that drive demand for better, more sustainable products while not extracting rent from the taxpayer or burning a hole in families’ wallets. 

As long as people continue to demand clean energy and support businesses that provide it, the future of clean energy will be in our hands.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of C3.