I never used to think in terms of a monolithic “they” with “real” reasons — I used to believe we’d just lurched our way into this untennable situation. But now, as we hold fast to this suicidal energy system based on fossil fuels in the face of all the evidence showing the economic, environmental, global warming and security threats it imposes, a little paranoia seems warranted.

Good comment. What you’re really hinting at is that there are always two reasons for what politicians do: 1) the real reason, and 2) the socially acceptable reason. Iraq is arguably the most recent “classic” example of this principle. First, the socially acceptable reason was WMDs; when that didn’t ‘pan out’, the fall back position became “connections to Al Queda”. With that thoroughly debunked (but still in desperate need of a socially acceptable reason behind which to hide the real reason) [don’t get me started on the second Bush Administration & hiding & what Jesus said about ‘no one lights a candle and hides it under a bushel basket…’], it’s not surprising that the third ’socially acceptable reason’, “democracy building”, finally reared its ugly head — not unlike the proverbial “elephant under the table”. I should hope it obvious that the things sorely missing from this list are the REAL reasons for Iraq, with which I won’t bore you (except to remind you that one has the initials O.I.L.). The things that make Iraq arguably the most classic example for all time are the facts detailed in the recent government report saying that NOW there is a most definite Al Queda-Iraq connection — courtesy of your friendly, neighborhood US intervention! I don’t know your definition of “self-fulfilling prophesy”, but this would fit mine if I didn’t know better, if I didn’t know that ‘Al Queda connection’ was really just a ’smoke screen’ — a socially acceptable reason behind which to keep the REAL REASONS for aggression & invasion safely skirted. So, you’re absolutely correct in speculating as to REAL motivations for continued funding of coal liquification; you’re probably not missing the mark by too far about existing infrastructure & what not (tax code, etc.).

This feeds directly into the second part of your prescient comment. Here, you strike at death’s absolute necessity — to get the proverbial “dinosaurs” out of the way so that they can act as “compost” fertilizing higher life forms. The thing that’s most ironic here is that it’s death of which we’re speaking with which to begin — coal being the ancient remains of by gone life — though toxic coal is most definitely NOT compost. (It’s arguably life’s greatest paradox that, in order to die, you have to have lived.) Jesus is attributed with having said, ‘Let the dead bury the dead’. I can’t help but wonder what His take would be on: ‘let the toxic dead dig up the toxic dead, subject them to liquification, and distribute their toxic remains as evenly as possible throughout the entire biosphere while remaining in darkness (oblivious) to any undesirable consequences’.

P.S. While I should hope it obvious that it’s about Enlightenment — that’s what Joe seems to be about: Enlightenment — obviously those so hopelessly lost in darkness can’t tell the difference between ‘the light’, ‘the shadows’, & ‘the darkness’. Yet, their ability seems uncanny to tell 1) that which needs to be hidden from the light from 2) that which ought to be seen in the light from 3) that which ought to be called light but which must remain forever hidden under bushel baskets called “Guantanamo” or whatever. I guess it’s for our own good because we can’t handle the light? But, I thought we were supposed to be about Enlightenment? OK. Now, I’m confused. I need a denialist to “pull a Jack Nicholson” right about now and tell me, “You can’t handle the light…”

You know, as much as you folks tout conservation, you have never acknowledged that science has failed. We can’t have more, like science promised, in your eyes. No nuclear power, no coal consumption, no oil - you’ve just gone and ruled out all the credible sources of energy.

So, thanks to you people, there will be no energy, and what you are really advocating is poverty. That’s right. Americans would all be better off if they were poor. God, keep it up. Despite having screwed up the war, we Republicans still have a shot at getting a permanent majority simply because we offer a better vision of a way to live.

More is better, not less.

We need to build the synthetic fuels plants so we can kiss OPEC, IRAN, IRAQ et.al. goodby. We can then feed them whatever we want to, be it coal, trees, trash, or switchgrass based on how we see AGWarming working out.

We cannot grow enough switchgrass to feed inefficient ICEs, whether it be by cellulosic ethanol or FT processes. We could however easily power PHEVs with electricity from wind or solar, using a tiny fraction of the land area. FT liquids are a dead end.