So let me get this straight

[Hoofhurr]

Very well thought out. That's one of the missing pieces I was hunting for. I'm always interested in the motivating factors and the players when trying to figure out the truth of something. That being said, 27 million might be significant but is still heavily outweighed by the funding for the opposing lobbies and is still a david vs goliath boxing match. It makes good sense to me that the green industry started out for purely ideological reasons and has now become politicized, but I'm still skeptical that the few companies that stand to gain something out of a greenward politicization have somehow out-maneuvered the existing massive energy complex. For the sake of argument, let's say they've gained a foothold.

Ok so what's happening then? Let's say a segment of american companies are actually influential enough to shift the energy industry greenward. Are the dem politicians pushing ideas like cap and trade as an isolated power grab or are they being prompted by american non-profits and american for-profits? It's more likely that these officials are working on behalf of these organizations in my mind. If that's the case then isn't a sector of the american economy actually benefiting from these changes? Are they just being stupid and shooting themselves in the feet or would these policies grow and diversify the economy?

I guess the question is what are we really losing by going green? If it's American companies and our european trading partners that are benefiting then aren't we doing fine on balance?