One Senator is a consultant for the (coal) mining industry and the other works for an organization that is partially funded by the big mining companies. Bi-partisanship is not dead in Utah!

These authors are saying we should let the free market solve our energy problems and let the energy companies strive to serve America's best interests on their own. Problem is that a free market requires "smart decisions" from players in the industry, and we continue to not see it. Detroit refuses to engage in fuel efficiency (so they lose market share to Japanese car makers and cut domestic jobs). Buildings continue to be made bloated and energy inefficient (forcing occupants to pay more to heat/cool them), and oil/energy companies stick with old fossil fuels with prices that continue to spiral out of control (that line their pockets, but hurt American consumers). For our oil, we're increasingly dependent on foreign countries and dictatorships, many which do not serve America's best interests because it is profitable for those multinational companies with Ameirca's continue protection of the oil/fossil fuel trade through military might (Newsweek says 40 percent of our military costs serve to protect oil) and subsidies. The solution? Policies to move America onto 21st century technologies that are energy efficient, price stable, don't require wars, and steer energy dollars into rural communities -- wind, solar, biofuels, geothermal. Government policy solutions are needed!

Wind, solar, biofuels, geothermal, do not get it done. A new technology is needed.

I predict that the hostile environment in the US toward the oil industry will cause them to quietly move their home base to more friendly headquarters, like Dubai. After all, the oil companies are just distributors, there is a mass world market. Keep treating them badly and you find yourself without a tank of gas to get to work. Self-righteousness is cold comfort.

I totally agree with No Free Market.
Policies which encourage Solar and other alternative enrgy will serve our national interests, provide jobs (Germany is pushing solar and has created 170,000 jobs in the industry), end the drain of money to dangerous countries and, in the end save us money. An MIT study found that we could get 10% of our electricity by 2050 from geothermal if our policies encouraged the industry. A recent article in Scientific American found that a national pro-solar policy could prduce most of our electricity and provide most energy for automobiles with a $440 billion expense between now and 2050. Additional energy could be provided by wind and biomass. The world is moving in this direction. The costs of solar electricity has dropped by 95% in the last 25 years and should be competitive with coal within 4-5 years (and the coal costs ignore the health, air pollution and global warming costs). The market will move us in this direction soon anyways- but the question is will be be the innovators who create the jobs or will we be buying our technology from China?

Mandate price stability?!!! If you don't like what the market does, don't put your money in, and change will happen. The lack of choice created by government intervention is the only thing you have to fear.

Suppose we mandate that clean power be provided at $0.04 per kilowatt hour. No one will produce it! You'll have none at all! Greed only becomes an issue when we have rationing and no competition!

If you can't stand coal, go nuclear (with fuel reenrichment). The rest are complete wastes of time (and energy).

The trouble is that nuclear power has the ability to grow to whatever level is needed to sustain our way of life and allow growth, and those who love the earth can't have that!

The comments on the article don't address the actual topic in the article. The author didn't argue against a good energy bill. Congress did what they do best which is to tax existing energy producers and put more bloat. The bill didn't mandate energy efficient building procedures. It didn't take a realistic view of investing in new energy technologies while continuing to guarantee existing options. It just made things worse. We elect representatives to solve problems, not make things worse because their myopic view shows any energy producer as evil. I say hurrah to Senator Bennet for helping defeat it. Now will Congress please do something that is in our best future interest?

Oil company's profits are being measured in the tens of billions. These oil companies don't pay proportional royalties in a time of 100 a barrel oil.

I think the guy that will be paying four dollars a gallon should get some consideration. Food increased one percent in Jan. That 12% a year. Health care will cost more and republicans worry about companies raking in records earnings.

The oil companies that made 40 billion also paid 40 billion in taxes. Is that enough?? Food increased about 1% because our idiot lawmakers insist that we turn more foodstuffs into ethanol. So the price of wheat and corn double which also drives up the cost of beef, chicken and pork. Tortillas, pasta and bread costs go up. Ethanol costs more to produce than gasoline or diesel so the cost of transportating everything goes up. Then we are surprised that the cost of food goes up.
All this feel good stuff about wind and solar is going to be very little help in the next ten or 15 years. There are multiple billions of gallons of fuel in Alaska and just offshore if our foolish congress would allow us to take it. It would provide us with domestic fuel for the next ten or 20 years while we learn how to make some economic alternatives. Solar power? I still want to see how you attach that to an airplane.

Yes. By all means lets keep doing what we have been; stay on course regardless of where we are headed. Why should there be any additional cost associated with energy?

Several comments seem to grasp indirectly that the way we are doing things is bound to reach the beach and fairly soon. So let's do something to attempt to find a solution, something other than reflexively reaching for our political affiliation/orientation.