@Schniepel

http://www.die-klima-allianz.de/wp-content/uploads/ccs_versuchsanlage.pdf
http://www.die-klima-allianz.de/wp-content/uploads/klima-allianz_factsheet_ccs_ansicht.pdf

The problem here is that you're grouping "environmentalist groups" into one giant category, which just isn't fair.

Remember, alot of these groups have particular interests that they want preserved.  One may be focused on animal welfare (Sierra Club comes to mind), while another may be concerned with greenhouse gases.  The problem is that each type of power trades off with one form of environmental protection or another.

Let's take one of the more obscure examples: methane capture.  Pretty simple process: capture methane produced at farms from animal waste, and burn the methane as a power source.  Sierra Club hates this system because it means large farms that contain animals would have an easier time dealing with all their [manure] (no pun intended), since current regulation forces CAFOs to set up storage pools for animal manure.

So the Sierra Club wants a power source that doesn't encourage animal abuse.  Hmm... nuclear power may seem viable.  Though nuclear waste is obviously going to provoke some other group coming on the offensive.  What will they say in response?  "We don't need nuclear power, when we have all these other potential power sources we can use!"

The issue isn't environmentalist groups all united against any power sources.  It's that environmentalist groups are fragmented, splintered, and fighting amongst each other because each has their own primary concern of what should be protected.

Honestly, I think the best choice is to let these groups fight it out, and for congressmen to sort of push an agenda that tells these groups that SOME alternative energy source is inevitable, and it's only a decision of which one.  I know this is a horrible representation, but ideally, it would look like a piece of legislation with a big blank line where Congress will fill in which energy source to use, and ask for amendments in the legislation.  Let the environmentalist lobbies fight it out amongst each other until one group is thrown under the bus, or allow them to reach a consensus vote about some obscure technology we're all forgetting about.

Flint, you are making the assumption that the people protesting against for example wind turbines also protest about global warming. If that was true then it could be considered retarded, but in most cases it probably isn't true. People protest about wind turbines because some people think they are a blot on the land scape. People protest about tidal power because they think it could disrupt wild life. In most cases I disagree because while I like preserving wildlife, I would prefer to preserve the planet and I will put down a few displaced seals as collateral damage but some people don't believe in global warming but do like animals. Some people believe in global warming but may protest that we are not going about dealing with it in the right way. wind turbines for example are pretty rubbish at generating electricity and while I think they look quite nice and do something to add to scenery other people think they are ugly and that we shouldn't be changing the natural landscape.

You can choose any large group of people, even large groups who you would expect to have the same general ideas about things and find people within them who have conflicting views. For example, I would guess that some people who vote republican have protested about gun control, while at the same time some republicans shoot mooses. If it were the same person doing both things then that would be retarded, but it isn't!

I do agree with you to some extent though that certain environmental groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth do seem to say no to everything, but just as in any political issue, extremists do not and will not ever make any sense and the important part of the political process is to decide and define where the centre ground lies.

flint, arent you a [superhero] yet?

"They use lawsuits as their weapons, and we stupidly allow them to do it. When lawsuits fail they protest, often violently. These environmentalists have used arson, bombs, murder, sabotage, vandalism, kidnappings, and more to pursue their agenda."

that's a harsh thing to say, can you supply some proof?

There will always be a down side to any form of energy we use. Huge wind farms destroy grassland habitant, solar cells (I believe; could be incorrect as I heard it from an unreliable source) require toxic chemicals or metals to produce, hydro electric dams also destroy vast amounts of habitant, nuclear power planets produce toxic nuclear waste, and the list goes on. The point is, these environmentalists who oppose everything are not offering better solutions. While I think this techonology is just a was for companies to excuse the fact of how much damage is done to the environment in just the mining of coal. Carbon emissions used to transport it are also over looked by most people.

are you crazy?? that would disrupt wildlife!!!

Um no I thnk you're stuck with them, just like Adolf keeps me from saying right-wingers are reasonable people who want stability