And those wise people in "government" -- if only given sufficient power -- will get us out of this problem? What gives you faith that, among all the competing possibilities, the right one(s) will be chosen? The problem with the government is its power ... to screw things up more than any private person could do. Well meaning, intelligent people can be wrong, and with the power of the government behind them, horribly wrong. Look at recent legislation--the best of intentions, but the results? Just one example: back when Carter was president, he imposed gas rationing. "Government" looked at gas usage from the past summer, noted that a lot of gas was used at the vacation spots (the Maryland/Delaware shore for DC) and allocated a lot of gas there. Unfortunately, people couldn't get there because there wasn't enough gas allocated to DC, so people couldn't drive to the shore, so the gas stations at the shore had lots of gas but no people. Just an example that, luckily, didn't cause major harm. If Shell alone had made that decision, perhaps Exxon would not have made the same decision, and no problem would have arisen. Command economies just don't work. That government is best that governs least--because people are fallible, limit their power and thus limit the damage they can do. Of course, if you like being forced to pay for ethanol . . .

"The argument was specifically related to the increasing cost of extraction. (In a nutshell, there's a reason we're now getting our oil from wells a mile underwater)."

1. Isn't the reason we're drilling in the Gulf is that the government has prevented drilling elsewhere? That you don't mention that undermines your argument hugely--did the article not mention it either?
2. If we are running out of oil, then the price will rise, making other sources preferable through pricing. The government's taxing oil to make its price rise 'artificially' might be justifiable on other grounds (e.g., national security) but not simply to hasten the natural process that prices rise through scarcity. And despite what the above posters say, AGW is not "proved" nor is the rise in temperature proved either. Take a look at the siting of temperature stations, for example.
3. When government puts its finger on the scale, friends of the government benefit, unforeseen (and usually negative) consequences almost always follow, etc.

We don't pay people to work for us to "motivate" them to work for us. We pay them for their labor. It's an exchange. Learning is--somewhat--the opposite. Teachers are paid by one group (taxpayers and parents) to teach another group (students). The groups begin to overlap at the college level. The K-12 students have little or no choice about what they learn, which is de-motivating by itself. So your comparison is not all that helpful.

My problems with the article include the fact that he only shared the results with TIME. Also, despite some of the comments, there doesn't seem to be any testing of the long-term effects. And, despite the hyping of his research as compared to other educational research, there are studies showing (as one would expect) that paying people to learn lessens intrinsic motivation. Like a drug, one would expect that students with external motivation would rely more and more on that at the expense of intrinsic motivation.

wrong. Lots of adults do "hard" things because they want to ... or have you never seen adults jogging, or in gyms working out?