I'm concentrating more on the green lobby than the fossil fuels lobby, because it's the former that wants to bring about major changes to the way energy resources are used, while the latter is interested (I assume) mainly in maintaining the status quo, which is to say, the use of fossil fuels to provide the vast majority of global energy needs.Well, let me answer that by asking you—why do you assume that this represents the victory of the fossil fuel lobby? Are you basically saying that if there was no fossil fuel lobby, that the US would have already cut its emissions? Don’t you think that there may be a few more relevant factors explaining fossil fuel use than a lobby?
To invert the question: if, as you claim, the green lobby is so powerful, how come the CO2 emissions from the world's biggest economy and second-biggest carbon polluter are going up instead of down? I just think you're making environmental scientists and campaigners into a straw man by making out that they represent a much bigger threat to the security of the mainstream energy industry than they evidently do. I mean, as padraig mentions, in recent times it's taken something as obvious and visible as the Deepwater Horizon disaster to actually shake things up at all, which I think says a lot.