Clarifications, explanations, embarkations... you get the point.

I have a response that addresses most of your points. I argue that the government should do nothing. Let the market work itself out. No government incentive or legislation can work as well as letting the market determine that fossil fuels are costly and other sources are necessary.

The framework is already in place to cap consumption in a way that the public finds acceptable. It’s called the free market, and that’s all I’ve been arguing for. Just let prices be real unsubsidized market prices (or, even better, tax consumption of fossil fuels to pay for their unaccounted for environmental costs). There is no single idea to come up with or law to pass, just stop subsidizing it. Obviously at this point a tax would be hard to swallow, so perhaps that step would come a little later. I completely agree that it is a mentality shift, but I’m saying that the best way to change people’s minds is to make doing whatever they’re doing not worth it anymore. Any amount of education on the matter is helpful, but that alone will not affect anything drastically enough for the kind of change that is necessary.

T Boone Pickens is the perfect example. The government is giving him nothing for his wind ideas. He is pursuing them because there is a supply of wind and a demand for energy. When the demand for energy puts it’s price (which is unarguably the best way to determine preferences, for proof see the USSR circa 1989) over that of the cost of wind then people will build wind plants and use that as their source of energy. It’s pretty obvious to me that, on a large scale, people will do whatever they can to get what they want as cheaply as possible without regard for the costs that are not incurred on them (most often environmental costs, but also in the form of sweatshops and blood diamonds). Make oil expensive (just by removing subsidies) and people will move on.

I suppose that when I said the government has played it’s role as well as can be expected I was using some sarcasm. I really believe that this is none of the government’s business see the Sherman Act as an indication of what I believe should be the extent of the government’s power in the energy sector.

I would say that the government at this point is subsidizing for a few reasons.
1. Cheap energy as well as infrastructure in general makes for a very successful economy.
2. The real cost of using fossil fuels was unknown until recently (arguably 9/11/2001 or as late as 2004 when Al Gore went crazy), the government has only had one president and seven years to act on this knowledge, and this particular president is not well suited for this problem (he was elected before widespread and specific knowledge on the subject so voter preferences could not have been represented).
3. There is indecisiveness amongst legislators as to the correct course of action, which leads to my last point which agrees with you.
4. Elected officials are scared that doing what is best will not be popular and will hurt their chances of being elected again. This is why the biggest gains have been made outside the political realm i.e. Pickens and Al Gore (a politician who is no longer vying for public office).

My argument also eliminates most possibilities of corruption. Government leaders cannot be profiting from a market that they do not influence.

Now, about the Bush presidency. I agree that he has not lived up to his expectations as president. I believe that he has had some difficulty to deal with that under the circumstances make me glad it was he who was elected and not Gore or Kerry. There have also been some times this second term that have made me wish he were not our president. The biggest point that I agree with you on is that it appears as though he is not willing to take the necessary steps to do what is best for the country, but with the stipulation that I believe that the US is still the best and most important country in the world even after 8 years of his leadership, which certainly says something.

I think that transparency is a good thing, I have not qualms with that. But I also believe that the government should do as little as possible. Basically I want the government to leave me alone until I really need it. This creates a responsible, strong, and healthy society. Protecting and caring for a child too much will contribute to the child being lazy, scared, and smothered. I feel that Americans are becoming all of these things, and that a big-government democrat will make it much worse. Now, a conservative on the issue of energy will not be of much use either, as they are unlikely to be willing to damage the economy by removing subsidies (even though the reduced taxes, if spent properly, would greatly help the economy) and little will be accomplished.(Although I can’t see Obama doing that either).

I referenced Three-Mile Island simply because it’s the only nuclear disaster in American history. I have no thoughts on Chernobyl as the Russians have a rather long history of disastrous failures. France is a better example, as it is run almost completely on nuclear power and still has some citizens who are cancer free! I guess with the nuclear thing I was just saying that beyond the risk associated with all things, nuclear power is safe. People cutting corners and companies worried about profits and shortchanging safety precautions is a very small concern in that industry. What they build are significant enough that not even NASA comes anywhere close to their budget. I’d even argue that as far as occupational safety goes, it is easily the best. The process to extract coal and oil and transport it are MUCH more dangerous than extracting and transporting uranium, mostly because of the scale, you need so much more of it.

The quality of my writing and thinking has declined significantly. You may disregard the last paragraph especially as I feel it is a shameful representation of my thoughts. I will wait in earnest for your response regarding both my 5 ideas and this piece. That is all. Goodnight.