I see you're not responding to any of my criticisms of your argument. In addition, you seem to both state the subject as mucking around with markets in order to change the culture (which it was) and the role of regulation as being the primary cause of energy price increases (which it wasn't)

My thesis was for this thread that it is not a good societal trade to cripple our own energy market for 30 years for some larger cause of cultural change. I saw this attitude in the original post and was wondering if that was what we were talking about. If that were the case, as I felt the OP was, its both ludicrous and presumptuous.

Thanks for the Jeopardy plug. One usually asks questions to learn where somebody else is coming from. I forgot about the Jeopardy angle. Could be in to make some big bucks down the road.

And BTW, I tried to make double-sure there was no straw-man argument involved in my posts. Each time I made the case for what I thought the other person was saying I tried to do so in a question, as in "Do you mean..." If I forgot to flag a couple of these, it was an oversight. I've got better things to do than to make up positions for other people and then argue them. But I will ask questions and make presumptions about where the discussion is going in an effort to move things along. But heck, when I use a question, then it seems to get you all bothered. What can I say? One does the best that one can.

I'm honestly interested in the other person's opinion, not in critiquing their debating style or sticking their argument in a box somewhere. In the last day I've been called trollish, snarky, voted down without explanation, my commenting style has come under withering attack. Everything but honest discussion. Heck. If I had all day I'd be glad to go after every post here, including the one about per-capita California consumption going down (ever think that manufacturing being driven overseas has something to do with this?) but I don't have the time. I joined in here, quite frankly, because I was bored with the code I was cranking out yesterday and wanted a bit of a diversion.

Hey. However the community works, fine with me. But I'm still curious. The only thing I've heard in response to my question is a bunch of hand-waving. Has there been a discussion of offshore drilling likely impacts? Nope. Has anybody commented on my question about 30 years of no new nuclear plants? One person. Anybody take up the issue of no new refineries, or the fact that each state has it's own fuel standards now? Or spent fuel reprocessing? Or the impact on ANWR of drilling? How about the limits of consumption reduction in a world market? Anybody care to talk issues? I know that wasn't the purpose of this thread, but gee, seems like we're doing anything but really having a discussion.

All I hear is "reduce consumption". Fine with me. I'm all for it. But you don't make the production problems go away by jumping up and down and waving your arms about consumption. Especially when consumption reduction is both a relative and fickle thing to measure. It's feel-good ideology: we consume therefore we're bad, and we should do the right thing and take a bike to work or something.

Bah humbug.