Right on, T. Boone, from what I understand, does have a vested interest in some of the issues he wants us all to ´join in on.´

Thank *GOD* that SOMEBODY is planning these things out!

(Of course, the NYS-DEC already prohibits transfer stations from leaking trash, so it's pointless. It'll cost $120,000, but it's pointless. You can imagine how livid the builder is, after two years of waiting for his building permit.)

I agree with the last sentence. Unfortunately, you suggestion has been tried to no avail. I don't know anyone on either the right or the left who supports either ethanol or farm subsidies and all have been ceaselessly pointing out the folly of these programs. Yet, they persist. D.A.R.E. (the stop drug use program in schools) has proven to be a colossal waste of money. Yet, there's no move to cut funding to this program while moaning and whining about lack of funds for this or that necessity persists (including about cutting music and sports – the two activities that actually have been shown to reduce drug use among kids). Oh, we could go on all day. Not doing anything is never politically compelling. Until we have a constitution which prevents government meddling, we're compelled to live with this rubbish.

I've gone back and forth on the value of government-directed "pure" research.

Energy companies would be investing billions into energy research without any incentive from governments. They've been funding such research for decades.

Isn't it likely government-directed research would divert effort from the most promising energy sources to those sources which provide the most political leverage – and bribes – for elected officials? Would corn-based ethanol research have gotten anywhere if the Iowa caucases were not so important in the election process?

IMO, nothing advanced by politicians can ever be "pure".

The problem, though is that saying "I don't think a plan is a good idea" is not politically compelling. With regard to energy policy, the better approach is to point out all the ways that the government has messed things up (e.g., the ethanol mess) and make your plan getting rid of those things. It's no wonder that the areas which are the most messed up are also the most regulated.

At Econbrowser, the argument was made that China developing Iraqi oil fields would benefit all because "a rising tide lifts all boats." I agree in principle.

However, I couldn't help but post the following comment:

Does anyone else find it slightly incongruent that so many see the benefits of "a rising tide lifts all boats" while supporting the U.S. government's policy of restricting domestic oil and natural gas resources? Apparently, as long as the tide of oil comes from elsewhere, we are happy to have our boats float higher.

The present government "policy" for energy, for example, is to create barriers for the supply of some resources while artificially cheapening the supply of others. The presumption seems to be that if consumers disassociate the cost of taxes-to-subsidies from the direct purchase price of subsidized products, they will demand more of such products and less of the restricted products. Well, they are correct, but are they right?

Political agendas simply have the effect of skewing what would otherwise be efficient and effective markets. Can you say "Carbon Credits?"

What might be a reasonable approach to the government's involvement in energy? Perhaps supporting pure research. That was obviously necessary for the development of atomic weapons. But nothing is to say, while unlikely, that the next great leap in energy won't come from an eccentric's garage?

I fully agree with your position. Looking for central "plans" isn't going to solve anything.

I think the point was: there is no 'man' smart enough to make it 'work'. Mans limited capacity for information, and the complexity of an economy, do not allow it.