They view Europe as evil, because it's full of evil liberals who care about the environment.

Your second paragraph and on is very misinformed. Electric is the most efficient energy source we have. Instead of burning gasoline in cars (extremely inefficient) we can burn them in a plant and feed the electricity to other applications. And yes I know we can't "switch" to wind and solar. That is a demonization to think that that's our goal. Wind and solar and tidal are meant to offset, not replace.

Furthermore, currently in the world today, there is 194 Gigawatts being produced worldwide. That's enough to power 194 million homes. We get a lot more power from it than you think. By 2020, the government wants 20% of our energy use based off of wind. Do you realize how much oil that displaces? So, much to your chagrin, we don't actually need to displace tons of animal habitats for it. We use tidal and wind in conjunction in oceans farms, and displaces very little.

There is a major reduction in usage, and you just need to educate yourself a little better. You have some good questions, and some logic behind it, but from what I can tell, your sources have blown it out of proportion. Additionally, there are many places that are nigh unliveable that are perfect environments for energy gathering, like the desert, the ocean, craggy landscapes, etc etc that we've only begun to transform into collection fields. By 2020 we could possibly offset oil needs by as much as 35-40%. You know how the arab world is only really a power because of their oil? Connect the dots, man. You're a bright guy.

There is so much more to gain than just energy and jobs. There's independence, defunding of the arab countries, raising the world standard, cultural reach, etc etc.

Being able to get on electricity in a sustainable way would end up meaning more flexibility in regards to what is used for energy.

i stopped reading after that. if you want your arguments to be taken seriously, you cant use an example of someone who nobody takes seriously

I know of very few people who are truly anti-environmental ... Practical environmental protection and realistic sustainable development is accepted and expected from practically everyone today; and almost everyone would agree that we need to diversify energy sources and be more efficient with the energy we use for a wide variety of reasons including environmental protection.

Skepticism about the level of impact humans are having to changing our climate seems to be a healthy rational and scientific reaction to the unrealistic predictions based on unproven computer models developed by biased individuals and fed manipulated data that have consistently predicted higher temperatures than we have observed. Even if it is true that production of CO2 is impacting our climate, if the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is closer to what has been observed in a lab (1 degree) or what can be inferred from real world observations (0.6 degrees) rather than the alarmist predictions of 3 to 6 degrees, it is highly unlikely that we could ever produce enough CO2 in an economical way to increase the world's temperature by 2 degrees over current levels; because that would take us producing over 7 times current levels based on lab observations, and over 15 times current levels based on real world data, because humans account for less than 50% of the CO2 in the atmosphere today.

You keep bringing up jobs.  You may create a few new jobs, but what about the jobs that are lost when we just start dumping oil and coal?  Basically we're going to be putting a lot of people out of work, while giving new people jobs, so jobs will probably remain the same. 

As far as Arab countries go, we could already have them defunded if we invest in the sources of fuel we have here, as well as develop more nuclear power plants.  While this is going on we would allow companies to further invest into other technologies, without given them huge taxpayer funded subsidies, and when the time is right and these technoligies are actually affordable, then the market will decide its time.

I find it interesting how you think burning gas in a car is inefficient, yet burning actual oil is more efficient and environmentally friendly.  Of course, you also have to think about our electrical grid as it is now.  There are brownouts and blackouts with how we have it now.  Now imagine what will happen when half the country is charging their car at almost the exact same time.  We would need a complete overhaul of our electrical grid.  Of course, you'll probably have special connectors that only special stations will be licensed to have, which will cost you extra to use on top of any Federal/State tax.  Then you have to charge at least 1-2 times a day (more if you travel long distances).  All  that, plus the extra expense of even purchasing the car, is not going to be very cost effective.

Edit: Also, there's the fact it's going to take you at least 6-8 hrs to charge your car.  And when the batteries die out, it will be quite expensive to have them changed out.  Which with how many times you will be charging it, will probably be once a year.

As far as i know 25-30% of energy is lost when burning fuels to convert to electricty (in power plants, closer to 40-50% for home generators) and than even more when transferring that energy to where it is used. How much energy is lost when burning gas for kinectic energy?

When you look at what companies are doing with modern engine and transmission designs, plug-in electric cars don't come close to the efficiency of a gasoline based automobile ... The combination of inefficiencies in distribution of electricity and charging of batteries eliminates all theoritical gains from centralized power generation; and the only reasons it is less expensive to power an electric car than a gasonline car is the electric car has less power, gasoline (tends to be) heavily taxed, and electricity is (often) subsidized.

Ahh, the arguments that the unrestrained free market has been the only thing to ever succeed, which is simply untrue. Whenever we've flirted too closely with unrestricted capitalism, it has led to problems (like the economic shakiness that accompanied the beloved Gold Standard, or the Great Depression that followed the unprecedented run of 20's laissez faire)

The key is balance. Much like how society functions poorly with too much or too little government control in general, it functions poorly with too much or too little market intervention. The free market is not infallible, period.

Right. Time was (up until the last decade or so) government funded all sorts of R&D for the sake of R&D, and this R&D ended up having unexpected and delightful applications all over our lives. Now no-one's willing to invest in real experimental stuff, and where will we proceed?