A clean environment is a good thing. Okay? Let's make that clear. I'm pretty sure everyone on this thread agrees to that.
However, since one can't have everything, that good has to be balanced against other good things.
I think, though, that it's a luxury good. When people have to worry about starving to death, they don't give a flying flip about pollution. If the only way to heat my house in winter also pollutes the atmosphere, well, I'm not going to volunteer to freeze just to get marginally cleaner air. However, I'll gladly switch *if* something better comes along -- nuclear power, perhaps. But those are incredibly expensive to build -- you have to get to the point where there's enough money available to do it. Richer countries are cleaner countries -- Europe & the US are much cleaner than China, for example.
The reason oil is so pervasive as an energy source is that it's one of the cheapest and easiest things available. Other sources of power may be feasible later, but right now, they are simply more expensive, and large parts of the world can't afford them. Forcing everyone to switch "within ten years" sucks money right out of, well, the whole economy.
So, given that, I have to wonder... does it really make sense to force economic changes that bankrupt everyone on the planet?
Especially given that the long term consequences of any course of action are *not* currently known and may not be knowable at all.
For instance, ethanol. It's less efficient than gasoline, but it's better for the environment, so we use it. The corn to produce it, though, is diverted from other uses -- like feeding the hungry. I think we all saw that last year; there were riots over higher food prices. Nobody in Congress set out to starve people, of course, yet that's what their actions led to.
