After nearly a month of financial bloodletting, world financial markets finally showed some signs of recovery last week. While the rallies began with bargain-hunting investors, there's no question that the arrival of the first waves of some $3.3 trillion dollars pledged by world governments to stem the crisis played a role, as well. Along with relief for shell-shocked bankers and investors, these relief funds also contain significant sums earmarked for clean energy firms and renewable power sources.

Certainly, there's no question in my mind that additional government intervention on behalf of greener energy is a good thing. Favorable state subsidies have long been one of the major drivers of private investment in companies focusing on clean energy production. Similarly, taxing dirty and carbon-heavy fuels, or forcing companies to pay to offset the amount of particulate or heat-trapping emissions they create also makes clean energy a very attractive buy.

That having been said, I think the clean energy sector should have significant concerns about embracing government handouts to build their businesses. Economists and scientists alike have argued that clean energy's higher face value costs are more than offset by the environmental damage it prevents. Carbon emissions caps, by assigning a monetary value to a major aspect of the damage fossil fuel sources create, make it easier to compare the true price of each energy source. Fines for exceeding emissions limits can easily be reinvested to repair this damage, and to stimulate new growth in cleaner energy producing practices.

Government subsidies for clean-energy producing companies, or for consumers of business that buy energy from clean sources, also provide a means of holistic cost comparison between clean and non-renewable fuel sources. However, subsidies generally create this balance at taxpayer expense, and without developing a source of revenue that can be reinvested in further research the way a carbon credits system does. They may also lead to clean energy companies factoring subsidies into their business plans, creating corporations that may not be sustainable should the political winds blow in a different direction.

Handouts from the government, while they may look appealing, are often the worst possible option. The pressures of the free market are an extremely effective means of maximizing efficiency. While it may lead to a higher rate of failure among clean energy start-ups, the companies that do survive boast a balance sheet as free of waste as the energy produced. Aside from being more appealing to investors, self-sufficient clean energy producers also help refute popular opinion that 100% clean energy is an unrealistic goal, dependent on taxpayer support.

After the most recent bailout bill failed to pass the House of Representatives on its first attempt, it had to be piled high with so-called "sweeteners"—you might also call them "pork". While the current financial crisis has many legislators turning a blind eye to the additional costs of these measures, it's all but certain as the pendulum comes back the other way, that a good portion of these programs will be cut. When that day comes, it's in the best interests of taxpayers, the clean energy sector, and the world as a whole, for clean energy producers to be as self-reliant as possible.