How bad will things have to get

before the unsustainable status quo begins to be turned? Is there some way to level the playing field of influence?
http://www.desmogblog.com/clean-energy- ... juggernaut
Since 1999 the oil and gas sector ( http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusc ... me=E01&id= ) has spent over $862 million - close to a billion dollars - trying to win concessions in the Capitol for their products. Combine this amount with the approximately $1.2 billion spent by electrical utilities and that is over $2 billion spent since 1999 in the name of oil, gas and coal.

In the same period the entire alternative energy sector ( http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusc ... =E1500&id= ) spent a meager $105 million - one-twentieth the amount spent by its main competition.

Lobbying has its place in politics, no doubt about it - everyone, including industry, should have a chance to convince politicians of their argument for or against a proposed law or regulation. But the system is broken when a single sector can flood Capitol Hill with close to a billion dollars and drown out any other voice, which is exactly what the oil and gas industry does every day to great effect.

RCCL wrote: Do you want a real and honest answer, because I can give you a pretty correct one:

When alternative fuels are cost-effective, and a better economic alternative without subsidies, the market will trend that way. That's how bad it has to get.

I should point out, I'm not saying that oil alternatives will get any cheaper, I'm saying that eventually the prices will even out. We got a taste a few summers ago now. Gas hit $4-5, and people took notice, and looked into alternatives. The same will happen, again and again, as prices fluctuate. Until it's economically feasible, however, you will never sell me, or anyone else, on its necessity. Through natural economics or the unnatural legislation of a social policy, however, it will eventually happen.

I saw commercials today for Ethanol, and wished I had a "bad call" brick to throw at my television. "An industry that has not offshore'd jobs", "an industry that is renewable", "affordable", etc.. I'm amazed still that the typical consumer doesn't look at these commercials and hate the lies that flow in the undercurrent of those statements. Ethanol is a viable alternative only because of the subsidies that are funneled into it each year right out of our taxpayer pockets.

I once joked with a friend (I know it's not really possible lol ) that I could push trillions of dollars into the economy and never have inflation simply by having a big enough hole eating money to counterbalance my over-creation of individual dollars. As an example for the hole, I used the "Green" movement.

You are forgetting/ignoring the subsidies to fossil fuel producers that artificially deflates prices (and the myriad governments and their artificial control over the production/processing/availability of fossil fuels making oil, gas, and coal not a true "free market" - SS109, you know I've pointed this out myself before - http://www.pinecam.com/phpBB2/viewtopic ... c&start=84 )- let's remove those and really compare costs to renewable sources. Free markets alone will not bring the needed change because businesses are going to continue business-as-usual and keep trying to make the biggest profit margins that they can on currently cheap fossil fuel energy. Comparing the "costs" of renewable energy to conventional energy is like comparing apples and oranges - the true costs of conventional fossil-fuel based energy are not paid in dollars by consumers. So if fossil fuel companies have been receiving subsidies for over a century, it's only fair that renewable energy companies start getting their share as well to level the playing field. And with that in mind, NREL has released a report that solar powered electricity production costs, both residential and utility size, will be on par with conventional energy production by 2015 - time to start saving up for those panels!
This dissertation says it well. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~odland/Od ... tation.pdf
Start on Page 62 for a description of the types of strategic actions that can be employed to deal with the oil endgame. On Page 64, she says this:

Perhaps the biggest problem with relying on the market to address peak oil is this: the oil market doesn’t meet the operational requirements for a functional free market. For starters, over 85% of world oil is produced, not by independent firms, but by nationally owned companies. ...For all of the above reasons, oil price signals are not reliable indicators of supply scarcity in the short run. Nor can we expect them to be good regulators of supply and demand in the short term. In fact many analysts argue that oil is significantly underpriced,[152] sending a false signal to the market. The market tool may therefore be of limited effectiveness in the oil transition endgame.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/ve ... g-oil.html

...gasoline prices paid by consumers do not reflect the full economic cost to society. The true cost is hidden by myriad direct and indirect public subsidies, which include
* reduced corporate income taxes for the oil industry
* lower than average sales taxes on gasoline
* government funding of programs that primarily benefit the oil industry and motorists

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the ... -comv.html

...the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which is calling on governments to let consumers face market prices in order to kick-start conservation and reduce official spending.

About half of humanity, from India to Chile, now benefits from cut-rate petroleum prices. And these subsidies will cost as much as $100 billion in 2008, or twice as much as last year, estimates the International Energy Agency. That would be money better spent on reducing oil use – what's called "demand erosion" – than encouraging it.

Shielding consumers from the real costs of an oil-based economy only makes it more difficult for them to face the coming end of the oil era.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00167.html

http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/08/p ... resources/
Is The Global Economy a Ponzi Scheme?

http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/29/m ... near-zero/
McKinsey 2008 Research in Review: Stabilizing at 450 ppm has a net cost near zero.
December 29, 2008
http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/08/m ... the-story/

http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2010/09/07 ... page=0%2C1
10 Things I've Learned from Leaders in Sustainability
By William McDonough
Published September 07, 2010

6. Renewable energy is dramatically approaching grid parity from a cost perspective in many places. For example, recent maps published by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory show that solar energy, even at the residential level, will be cost effective in most of the U.S. by 2015.

https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sam/
http://www.solarindustrymag.com/e107_pl ... ntent.6114

SS109 wrote: And all that lobbying wasn't enough to save coal mining in this state after Xcel started converting their plants to natural gas.

Not that X-Cel hasn't tried, but they are also rather diversified for an energy company and seem to be thinking long-term (penalties for emissions will be implemented at some point and it takes time to convert coal plants). But X-Cel is only one company; how many others out there aren't even trying to switch over? http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Xcel_Energy

Xcel Energy is one of the largest energy company contributors to both Republican and Democratic candidates for Congress.
The Center for Responsive Politics Open Secrets database lists Excel disclosing that in 2007 it spent $2.7 million on lobbying.
Xcel generated 17,162 megawatts (MW) of electricity in 2005 (approximately 1.7% of all electricity produced in the U.S.). Of that total 2005 generating capacity, 8,961 MW (52.2%) was from coal, 5,162 MW (30.1%) from natural gas, 1,737 MW (10.1%) from nuclear, 581 MW (3.4%) from hydroelectricity, 524 MW (3.1%) from oil, 119 MW (0.7%) from wood and waste, and 26 MW (0.2%) from wind. Xcel’s 8,961 MW of coal energy production made it the 7th biggest private coal energy producer in the U.S. in 2005.[2] (However, Xcel has strongly pursued wind power in recent years, and by the end of 2007 Xcel had 2,800 MW of wind power capacity – making it the biggest wind power producer in the U.S.[3])
After witnessing the public opposition to its Comanche 3 plant, Xcel executives have admitted that “they may never build another” coal-fired power plant.[34]

For good info on world energy statistics:
http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/ ... s_2010.pdf