[Carry_Okie]

Maybe I'm stupid, but I've never seen an environmental group oppose alternative energy sources, even when they aren't environmentally, much less commercially, sound.

They advocate renewables until it's time to actually build production facilities. Then all they talk about is "conservation." You should see all the resistance to wind farms (kills birds, noisy, looks ugly...), biomass (relies on logging or beef production (for methane... bad, bad, bad)), geothermal (water pollution, thermal pollution, odors, etc.), and hydroelectric (now tell me how many environmentalists you hear advocating dams). The only "green" power source environmentalists almost continuously support is solar. As we both know, that source consumes vastly more energy than it produces except for perhaps passive solar home heating. Even the payback on solar hot water is poor.

I guess I'm having trouble with your logic here. I'd like to see the source which links "individuals" and their private tax exempt organizations. Most corporations that USED to be involved with middle eastern oil extraction, were long ago nationalized by the arab homeboys.

I sure can tell you haven't read that book.

Rockefeller (XOM), Prince Barnhard (Shell), British royals (BP), the Pew family (SUNOCO), and now even the Packard family (that's right, Hewlett/Packard money) all have big-time interests in fossil fuel production (although the Packard money is now in offshore gas). Their respective foundations are all first line supporters of environmental groups, and are they ever in good company.

Consider the credentials of the single most effective promoter of UN environmental initiatives (from pages 319-320):

Maurice Strong is a Canadian billionaire, a Board member of Petro-Canada and Dome Petroleum, and President of Ontario Hydro. He is Director of the IUCN (the EPA of the UN), Chairman of the Earth Council, Trustee of the Aspen Institute, Director of the World Future Society, Director of Finance for the Lindisfarne Association, founder of Planetary Citizens, member of the Club of Rome, Chairman of the World Resources Institute, and Co-Chairman and founder of the Council of the World Economic Forum and Senior Adviser to the President of the World Bank. He is President of the World Federation of United Nations Associations, Senior Advisor to the UN Secretary General and for the Rockefeller and Rothschild Trusts.

These individuals use their "charitable" foundations to purchase political influence to enhance their personal portfolios. The more money that foundation makes, the more political power they wield as Directors.

There are a number of excellent books out on the topic of influence buying by "charitable" foundations. Perhaps the best is Undue Influence, by Ron Arnold. Unfortunately all such books have one flaw in common: they offer no structural solutions. In that respect, mine is unique.

[BOBTHENAILER]

I sure can tell you haven't read that book.

Been too busy taking care of all necessary functions relative to drilling a few deep natural gas wells (cheap, reliable energy).

I'll grant you the resistance from greens to hydro-electric projects (save the fish), I never even considered that source, as it has been a foregone conclusion for as long as I can remember. As for wind, I see far more resistance from the right than the greens. Currently in N. MI, there is greeat support from all greens for proposals to install wind generators, despite their cuisinart abilities. Geothermal projects are too few and far between to consider, although you correctly point out opposition. Neither did I include biomass, as it is too small, too time consuming and impractical for real consideration.

My point was simply this. It appeared to this humble reader that your post was advocating green energy, when the point of my posting the article, was to show the vast amount of cheap, reliable energy available to us if we can only overcome the GREEN resistance. You well know the various costs per kilowatt when considering wind, solar, biomass; the ONLY green solutions that can realistically be considered. Too bad the Green lobby won't permit hydro and geothermal, as we both know their cost effectiveness.

Thanks for the edification on the individuals and their charitable trusts, although I was aware of the Rockefeller and Pew connections and the last I heard the British Royals control the vast majority of SHELL stock. Frankly, their interest, or lack thereof due to nationalization, in middle eastern oil, is secondary to the whole premise of the article. Which is, we have plenty of resources available given the political climate to extract them.