Via Brad Plumer, this chart from a Carnegie Mellon research paper showing patent applications for sulfur dioxide control technologies at power plants is really quite remarkable. 
What you're basically seeing are huge explosions in research and innovation as a response regulatory action on the part of the federal government. The government didn't demand this innovation -- it simply made the old ways of doing business unprofitable (because they were illegal) and let the market come up with new, cleaner ways of working. And, lo and behold, the market succeeded! This is, of course, exactly the argument underlying cap-and-trade schemes as a response to global warming. Render carbon emissions costly and the market will figure out how to reduce them. The "responsible" conservative position, which basically calls for R&D spending without regulatory interference, relies on a frankly uncharacteristic faith in the government to identify, subsidize, and popularize the right technologies. Problem is, they've been much too effective in discrediting central planning and government bureaucracy for anyone to think that a couple billion in federal spending would be a wise way to respond to an oncoming climatological catastrophe. Conversely, there's ample evidence, both theoretical and historical, that regulation can direct the market in productive and innovative directions. There are even charts.
What you're basically seeing are huge explosions in research and innovation as a response regulatory action on the part of the federal government. The government didn't demand this innovation -- it simply made the old ways of doing business unprofitable (because they were illegal) and let the market come up with new, cleaner ways of working. And, lo and behold, the market succeeded! This is, of course, exactly the argument underlying cap-and-trade schemes as a response to global warming. Render carbon emissions costly and the market will figure out how to reduce them. The "responsible" conservative position, which basically calls for R&D spending without regulatory interference, relies on a frankly uncharacteristic faith in the government to identify, subsidize, and popularize the right technologies. Problem is, they've been much too effective in discrediting central planning and government bureaucracy for anyone to think that a couple billion in federal spending would be a wise way to respond to an oncoming climatological catastrophe. Conversely, there's ample evidence, both theoretical and historical, that regulation can direct the market in productive and innovative directions. There are even charts. 
