What business-affiliated people who are against clean energy do not understand is that clean energy is good for business. It will make more money than oil and coal. As for oil, it will last longer and be used to produce value-added products like styrofoams, plastics and pharmaceuticals. Which means that in the long run it will even be good for oil companies themselves. — Ilya B Shambat

That fails the economics litmus test. Energy is an input into everything that we as a country produce. Raising the price of energy means the price of every good goes up and thus the purchasing power of every American goes down. Put another way, everyone gets poorer. This is not good for the consumers who now can buy less for their dollar and it's not good for the companies who now have less buyers for their products since consumers have less disposal income to spend on them. The resulting effect is massive job losses across the board as companies scale back production and need less people since there are less buyers for their goods due to those buyers having less income to spend. That's not good for society.

Also, to say that oil's use in producing energy is not value added is not correct - it enables the production of literally everything manufactured. There's no greater value add than that. And to argue that clean energy would be good for oil companies who would see >90% of their revenues (and profits) evaporate if oil's use for energy simply stopped one day just doesn't make sense.

Here's an additional thought to ponder. If (when) we get to the point where oil supplies start to dwindle, the price of oil will necessarily rise. That higher price will hugely incentivize research and innovation to find sufficient substitutes, and better alternatives will come into fruition at that point. No need for government intervention to allow all of this to happen. It will happen naturally in a free market. But there's a difference in this scenario. Left to market forces, it might be another 100-200 years before oil supplies dwindle due to innovative ways being discovered to extract more of it from the earth (IE: the shale oil boom). That's 100-200 years that we can enjoy and reap the benefits of the cheapest energy possible, continuing a booming economy flush with extra money due to cheap energy that can be used to continue to improve society in the form of healthcare innovations, technology innovations, and general overall improvements to the human condition - improvements that our descendants will benefit from and improvements that would be muted to some degree (perhaps significant) if higher energy costs were foisted on the public today by the government.

None of this addresses the climate change topic. Your mileage may vary on that topic depending on how apocalyptic you think that is and how limited you think mankind's ability is to find some innovative solution to it that doesn't involve eliminating all fossil fuels.

We do not have direct access to neurons and their patterns of firing any more than we have the capacity for direct intervention into the functioning of our liver, even if the liver sometimes were to function randomly". — StreetlightX

I appreciate the thoughtful responses everyone has provided. The quote above is the sticking point I keep ending up at in my mind. To put it another way, if we don't have direct control over the pieces (neurons firing), how can we have direct control over the whole (our brains and the thoughts/actions that stem from them)? Does anyone have some theories on how to refute that? How can the tail wag the dog (as an analogy)?

Indeterminism at the quantum level also doesn't seem to invalidate that statement. (and as SophistiCat/StreetlightX stated, indeterminism or randomness at the quantum level seems like it could pose some potential problems as well for free will - something that hadn't occurred to me)

But it's not. As you note, there is an element of uncertainty, and so indeterminacy, at the fundamental levels of the Universe. It isn't set in stone, so to speak, and could have played out in an incalculable variety of ways. — Wayfarer

Assuming this is true - even though the universe could have played out in an incalculable number of ways to get us to this point in time say due to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, does that necessarily preclude what I stated in my post: that when you raise it to a higher level than the quantum level, things still start looking pretty deterministic? Take the laws of physics. If I throw a ball, the odds are pretty darned good that it's going to leave my hand and fly through the air. What are the odds that it won't leave my hand? 1 in a trillion? quadrillion? quintillion? Even if things are probabilistic and not certain at the quantum level, it seems that when you raise it up high enough, things still start to look pretty deterministic.

To continue with my initial example - how can we actually have control of our thoughts/actions when these thoughts/actions are driven by chemical reactions at a level that we can't possibly control? I can't trigger a chemical reaction by my will alone - it's just something that was set into motion by the close proximity of those molecules, and those molecules were where they were due to external impacts that I also had no control over. So in the end, how did I myself affect the chemical reaction that caused the electrical impulse in my brain that led to a thought/action? Help me understand.

People frequently sign up here and ask this question, and what I always ask them in return is: is this something they did freely? — Wayfarer

I think you're suggesting that I must have free will in order to decide to come on here and post. But I don't see it that way. Life can function as we see it with the illusion of free will even if it doesn't really exist. I can see our brains still going through the "decision making process" that seems as if we have control over ourselves even if the decision we ultimately arrive at is not really something we had control over, because the factor that tips the scales in that decision was something we didn't ultimately have control over.

I also often feel like asking determinists if they have considered the possibility that they want to believe in determinism, because it saves them from having to take responsibility for their lives.

I agree this can be the lure of determinism for some people. Not me - I would prefer to think that I have responsibility for everything good that's transpired in my life. The whole topic of moral culpability etc. doesn't really interest me because if determinism exists, a murderer may not ultimately have responsibility for their actions, true, but that doesn't change the fact that society will continue functioning as it is and punish them. I don't see determinism as changing any of that.

But it's not. As you note, there is an element of uncertainty, and so indeterminacy, at the fundamental levels of the Universe. It isn't set in stone, so to speak, and could have played out in an incalculable variety of ways. — Wayfarer

Assuming this is true - even though the universe could have played out in an incalculable number of ways to get us to this point in time say due to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, does that necessarily preclude what I stated in my post: that when you raise it to a higher level than the quantum level, things still start looking pretty deterministic? Take the laws of physics. If I throw a ball with sufficient force, the odds are pretty darned good that it's going to leave my hand and fly through the air. What are the odds that it doesn't? 1 in a trillion? quadrillion? quintillion? Even if things are probabilistic and not certain at the quantum level, it seems that when you raise it up high enough, things still start to look pretty deterministic.

To continue with my initial example - how can we actually have control of our thoughts/actions when these thoughts/actions are driven by chemical reactions at a level that we can't possibly control? For instance, I can't trigger a chemical reaction just by my will alone - it's just something that was set into motion by the close proximity of those molecules, and those molecules were where at that moment due to external impacts that I also did not control. In the end, I didn't have direct control over that chemical reaction that produced the electrical impulse in my brain that eventually materialized into a thought/action. Help me understand how this is not the case.

People frequently sign up here and ask this question, and what I always ask them in return is: is this something they did freely? — Wayfarer

I think you're suggesting that I must have free will in order to decide to come on here and post. But I don't see it that way. Life can function as we see it with the illusion of free will even if it doesn't really exist. I can see our brains still going through the "decision making process" that seems as if we have control over ourselves even if the decision we ultimately arrive at is not really something we had control over, because the factor that tips the scales in that decision was something we didn't ultimately have control over.

I also often feel like asking determinists if they have considered the possibility that they want to believe in determinism, because it saves them from having to take responsibility for their lives.

I agree this can be the lure of determinism for some people. Not me - I would prefer to think that I have responsibility for everything good that's transpired in my life. The whole topic of moral culpability etc. doesn't really interest me because if determinism exists, a murderer may not ultimately have responsibility for their actions, true, but that doesn't change the fact that society will continue functioning as it is and punish them. I don't see determinism as changing any of that.