[Brilliant]

I'm not suggesting that we should pass laws to solve this problem. I'm suggesting that people need to put more money and effort into solving the problem, and stop pretending that the problem doesn't exist.

Although frankly, I would be in favor of giving companies incentives to do research on things like biomass, fuel cells, etc. The problem with relying solely on the private sector to do that is that the only way to recoup investments like that is thru patents, and that is a very ineffective way of doing it. A lot of things aren't patentable, and patents end up in court. They also expire. In addition, they are basically monopolies. Anything that depends on a monopoly to make it work is at best what the economists call a "second best solution."

[Dan Evans]

Why do you think there isn't enough research on energy production? Don't you think the oil companies executives take a very deep personal interest in the future? They spend billions on research and development.

The very last thing we need is to have politicians directing US energy policy. That's what I call a "second best solution". They don't know what they are doing and they are just as likely to take advice from Barbara Streisand as from an experienced scientist.

The problem with relying solely on the private sector to do that is that the only way to recoup investments like that is thru patents,

And yet, surprisingly, the industrial revolution and prosperity came about because of the private sector and the temporary monopoly of patents. We know that using government enterprise is a bad way to go because we see what happened to the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, etc.