<Let me rephrase this -- apparently difficult -- question: do you think that environmental policy and energy policy should be decided upon, with only business interests represented?

Maybe we should turn the question around from a libertarian perspective: do you think that businesses should be forced to attend constant meetings in Washington, and pay protection money, to make sure an Official Federal Energy Policy that might otherwise be generated by a Ralph-Nader-type psycho doesn't wreck them while they aren't looking, prevent them from doing their job, or make their business illegal? Well, let's leave that be for now.

Many environmental rules are frankly idiotic. The MTBE and boutique gasoline laws that California suffers under is only one small example of this.

I stand by my previous description of most radical environmentalists: they don't know jack shit about how energy is produced, the economics involved, the science behind it, the laws associated with it, or the technology used to produce it. I have read their stuff, and I know how they think, and what their goals are.

It is counterproductive at best, and dangerous at worst, to give them any more than a cursory input on this subject.

Besides, with their hammerlock on the leftist press, what are they worried about? I would think the hundreds of stories in the papers bitching about the so-called environmentalist lockout would show where the sympathies of the press lie. The lockout is largely mythological anyway. The papers released included many position papers from environmental groups. They're just upset that they didn't get called in for the Big Meetings.