If all of these are true why, regardless of global warming, aren't our leaders insisting on less-polluting energy sources? On increased efficiency?
Bottom line, it's expensive. Moreover changing systems would require a complete overhaul of a significant portion of the current energy delivery system. It's amazingly expensive just to transmit energy over power lines just in terms of transfer loss. In addition, current alternative energies can't even come close to the efficiency/cost of fossil fuel generators. Some may argue that this will change due to economy of scale, but I would argue that a market has to be present for an economy of scale to function. The recent failure of alternative energy companies shows this to be a problematic proposition.
My primary concern is with 3rd world countries. Billions of humans still heat their food over fires and have no way to store perishable food. Its these countries that are hardest hit by UN resolutions and treaties that regulate polluting. In much of the world people still live to an average age of 40 (or less) and this can be linked to a lack of running water, food storage, and medical care all of which require energy. I may be a skeptic but I see the point of less pollution (who in the hell likes smog?). It's important that less developed countries enter into the discussion of energy efficiency. How can we increase efficiency without making others live more of a living hell than they already are?