Richie - ok, at least I understand where you are coming from.

So to continue to drill down in this a bit..

What is your opinion on balancing the following two points of view?

1) Individual liberties and competition at it's best. Whomever will sell me a barrel of oil the cheapest will get my business so I can be more competitive because my energy costs will be lower.

2) Tragedy of the Commons. Individuals can't be trusted to go out each day and deny money to terrorist organizations funded by oil revenues. Since the only time people listen is when it hits them in the wallet, we need to hike import taxes (or ALL taxes) on oil to discourage their use. Perhaps by choking off the money supply, we can de-fang terrorist groups more cheaply than with huge military expenditures.

Those are the two positions that, I grant you, I'm wondering where in between them I stand. My gut says 'the individual' but if I step back and try to look at 'the big picture' there's something to be said for working together for a common goal - and dragging the myopic along kicking and screaming (like when your mother told you to eat your veggies even though you didn't want to).

I'm not afraid to admit that I'm trying to find something in between and it's difficult to draw a line.

But I will say this. Cap and trade? Sounds bad to me - mostly because we don't know where the money goes. When I buy a ticket on Amtrak, I'm asked if I want to purchase "carbon offsets" to 'be green'. I have no idea where this goes.

Now, if someone put out an energy tax who's revenues went directly into an 'energy infrastructure bank' that would pay for new generation nuke plants, clean coal, wind and solar farms - THAT I might go for.