> What is your theory though? Who is pushing this concept and for what gain? "Who benefits" is always a valid question. However in the climate and energy deba

> What is your theory though? Who is pushing this concept and for what gain? "Who benefits" is always a valid question. However in the climate and energy debates it is usually just left hanging there - implying that some cabal of shady characters somehow benefit. The question serves very little purpose if it isn't followed by a somewhat coherent story that points to "who benefits" and "how". So in order to redeem yourself, would you mind terribly answering who benefits. And perhaps why this is either good or bad? Names, numbers and observable facts. As for who doesn't benefit, that's much easier: incumbent energy companies and the immense government interests in maintaining the status quo. (Even the tinfoil hat "free energy" quacks manage to harp on about who is thwarting their efforts to supply the world with free energy). Heck: _I_ would benefit from maintaining the status quo. I live in Norway - a country whose pension fund is built on oil revenue and is currently the largest national sovereign wealth fund in the world. My quality of life as I retire is directly linked to how large this fund is. It would be in my interest that we keep pumping out hydrocarbons for as long as possible so we can load up on stocks and not depend on being innovative or doing actual work to remain wealthy. (That being said, this pension fund is essentially a giant index fund. So there's that :-))