Who controls our energy supply, what do they want us to do, and why?

You are correct. Not only are our energy sources controlled by groups, but the influence of that control has been deleterious. Without the influence of the oil industry on our gov't would we be going to war in the Middle East? Personally, I also blame the fossil fuel industry for the fact that our technology for e-cars are really not much improved from the 80s.

It is absurd that we do not have e-cars that can travel 250 miles at 70 mph on one charge as just a plain jane car. I cannot prove this, but I suspect foul play and the buying up of many patents.

Now generally I would use such an argument against the "deniers". Here's the problem though. MOST "deniers" are not against nuclear power and indeed support it. Most "deniers" are not against solar power. Indeed, they would love to have some solar panels on their home and be "off the grid".

What they are against is gov't control. Adding yet another method that the gov't can control us is dangerous. Our founding fathers were aware of the danger of too much power given to the gov't. What about complete reliance???

Generally, I would love to help out with reduction of CO2 emissions. Persoanlly, from the paleocliamte data, I think CO2 emissions are a good thing and help plant life, BUT I am not sure. Because I am not sure of all the consequences of adding so much CO2 to the atmosphere, I DO suggest limiting our emissions until we know. But how we do it is VERY important.

I have given options many times that will not lead to more taxation and will decrease the cost of energy in the long run.

It gets difficult to believe that the warmers truly care about CO2 reduction when so many of them blast nuclear power. It become impossible when the tax "solutions" that they propose MAY decrease US emissions, but will have very little effect on worldwide reductions.

Consider. If you tax CO2 in the US, then we use more "clean" forms of energy. This causes a global drop in demand of the "dirty" energy sources. A drop in demand means a decrease in cost, which means other countries that are not taxing themselves will use more "dirty" sources of energy. The overall impact??? Neglible.

Consider the alternative. Work toward reducing the cost of "clean" sources. This would have a much more desirable effect both in the US and worldwide.

The government has a large amount of regulatory powers but their powers are limited but still formidable. The government killed coal pretty much under Obama and they tried to kill other fossil fuels as well but a funny thing happened, fracking. Fracking allowed natural gas and petroleum on private land to vastly increase the supply and wreak the enviro-wacko's plans. Big Oil has big pockets and quite a few politicians fit well within those pockets on both sides of the isle. The Gulf spill happened with expedited permits and that happened under Obama's reign. They then fleeced ARCO so that ARCO would set up (extortion) a fund to pay off Democrat constituencies and that is only a slight exaggeration

The government has the Constitutionally granted power of defense. Clearly nuclear fits in there. Nuclear reactor technology also fits nicely in those limitations. The government developed fracking? That is news to me. Was that GW or Clinton's idea, or perhaps Ronaldus Magnus. That sounds to me like Obama saying, "you didn't build that". I know that Obama pretended to take credit for increase production that resulted from fracking but that was a lie. He had nothing to do with it and he and his donors did their best to prevent it and still attack it with claims of water pollution etc. Just because someone in the government takes credit for something (i.e. Gore and the internet), it doesn't mean they actually deserve credit.

"That has serious implications for what Big Oil wants from us."

What Big oil wants is what we want. They want to sell it at as high a price as they can get and we want to buy it as cheaply as we can unless you are in the Obama administration and want it at $8.00 per gallon.

"Control the energy supply, and you control the people."

I do not accept this premise as a generally applicable observation. There is more than kind of energy, more than one supplier, and there is energy demand (which is not the same as supply). Theoretically, a big brother government might regulate every aspect of people's life (including energy use) but I do not see any real relevance of that to climate change issues. We have regulated utilities, and taxed gasoline for nearly a century. If we start doing so, not just for revenue or safety reasons, but to help level the playing field that is now warped towards carbon fuels, I don't buy the notion that this has any great likelihood (in and of itself) of producing totalitarian rule.

I am flattered....

To answer your question, nobody currently controls the U.S. or world energy supply. The energy sector is far too fragmented to exert any sort of concerted control. There is competition between the oil and coal industry. The nuclear power industry is separate from either. If you look at the top five oil companies, on is American (Exxon-Mobil), one is Dutch, one is British, and two are Chinese. France, Russia, and Italy are represented in the top 10. Do you really think these companies are working together?

OPEC is the closest you get to controlling energy.

The govt does control some forms of our energy. That's why I can't have a nuclear reactor in my basement.

But the majority is controlled by private corporations, and they do it to seek profit.

Ever wonder why geo-thermal energy is so expensive? Because once you plug in to the planet, you unplug from every other power corporation...and they can't make profits from you.

To see your answer, look at what the government has done with the recent coal tax. Look at what is going to happen to electricity rates. Plants have been refitting to take clean coal, more are planning to convert to natural gas, the cleanest fuel of all, and the providers were planning to do this before Obama used the EPA in a constitutional end around to raise these rates. You have a valid question, may I rephrase it.

Who is in bed with who

The oil gas and coal energy control the energy supply.

Nobody "controls" it. Producers and countries have a lot of power though.

I will be better able to answer your question if you can give some examples of the control being exerted. Did you have any particular control in mind?

I have read your updates and you have not included any instance of anyone controlling the energy supply. You have just had a rant about things you don't like. I can spot the difference.

"... but you yourself said that they want as much money as they can get and we want cheap power. Those are not the same at all. Big Oil is directly opposed to our interests, by your own account, no? "

What sort of convoluted logic is that? We want to trade oil with them. Sounds like a classic "mutual coincidence of wants" to me. Price to be negotiated.

Great fireball in sky control energy. Simple caveman ask ball of fire why he no answer and ball of fire give simple caveman skin cancer. Best not ask great ball of fire question.