While "going green" is indeed on one hand simply an extension of conservative, frugal and cost efficient ideologies/technologies which seem to be good for people and the planet overall, pushing the agenda of global warmingists which seems more more laden with the concept of international wealth redistribution as industrialized countries are expected to pay hefty taxes into an international fund which then is re-distributed to developing nations is nothing more than an attempt to slyly take from the haves and give it to the have nots which is just an extension of the socialist agenda afoot here in the US and abroad.

I'll state my own objection to your accusation that my research has been only to read "pulp" versions of climatologists and scientific study data as being patently false, both on the surface and further as I have read volumes of data provided by camps on both sides of this issue in the form of scientific studies beast. Congrats on actually attempting to state your own case in a somewhat reasonable manner on this issue (finally), but having weighed the facts and opinions on the issue of global warming I still stand 100% behind my thoughts on it.

In relation to the US dependence on foreign oil and technologies our very own government has held our oil exploration endeavors in check as drilling permits are denied US companies which in the end will bite us on the ass even more severely as foreign companies and countries are free to exploit the oil reserves located off our own coasts while American companies who could be putting Americans and American industries to work in doing so cannot. We are left instead to stand idly by as international oil concerns are capable of setting up rigs as close as a tad past the 12 mile marker off our shores, then turn around and sell us the oil the US govt. prevents us from drilling for, which seems patently ludicrous.

Then we have a congress who again puts the US economy on the international chopping block by mandating florescent "green" light bulbs and outlawing incandescent bulbs, which on the surface might sound reasonable and prudent until one finds that NO US company manufactures such bulbs, due again to regulations regarding their production because of the risks from the powdered mercury used in their manufacture.

These new florescent bulbs are instead made in China which effectively hands a congressionally mandated windfall to manufacturers outside our own shores while shuttering US production and companies as a byproduct of this process, mwhich again takes from the overall US economy and hands it to foreign interests. As if our trade deficit and overall national deficit weren't staggering enough, we have a congress that might as well be standing on our shores shoveling $100 bills into a jet stream blowing directly into Chinas banks!

As an aside to this discussion a seeming disparity certainly seems to also exist here as a logical question with a firm basis in morality can be asked ... "How is it reasonable to say that the manufacture of these products is too hazardous by US standards to happen here but it's suddenly A-OK for it to occur outside our shores?", and not only occur, but then be rewarded by the American consumers (by congressional mandate) for foreign companies producing a product deemed too lethal to manufacture here? Does anyone else see disparity, lack of overall morality and double dealing/double standards in this, 'cause I sure do