Lars Smith summarizes a Stratfor article.

The realists are winning. In the EU they have been greatly strengthened by the demonstrated willingness of Russia to use energy for political blackmail. The idealists are in the impossible position of simultaneously arguing that climate change represents the possible end of the world, but that the situation is not so dire that we need to turn to nuclear energy or “clean coal” technology.

From the article:

On one hand are the idealists who have pressed for energy policies that dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, that work only toward renewable energy sources and that do not include either nuclear power or coal. They did not come all this way to see the revival of nuclear power, the perfection of “clean coal” technology or drastic subsidies for ethanol producers. Their activism was driven by a desire to spur a new economy. However, they are the ones who simultaneously say that climate change represents the possible end of the world, but that the situation is not so dire that we need to turn to proven solutions that happen to be very troublesome. For them, the current debate is a defeat. Industry’s entry means the end of the game because it forces them to deal with the reality of what they are demanding.

On the other hand are the realists, those who work within the existing system to make attainable policies. For them, even those concerned by nuclear power, the current debate is a significant victory. For the first time since the 1970s, all of the major Western countries are working on policies that dramatically reduce their consumption of oil, and most are looking for alternatives to coal. Industry’s entry into the issue is a dream come true for the realists because it is industry that has the knowledge and technology to make the changes the environmentalists demand.

And the realists are having a pretty good time of it. Innovative technology companies like Honeywell and Johnson Controls are in a pitched battle to develop the most efficient building environment control systems. Automakers are again advertising the fuel economy of their cars. Oil companies are lobbying parliaments for stricter caps on greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, the institutions with the wherewithal to solve complex problems are working to achieve the realists’ long-standing objectives.

The "realists" may be working within the existing system to make attainable policies, but they aren't doing anything useful about the climate. They are scrambling to increase or maintain their viability and profitability amid political turmoil, just as the politicians are doing. But they are merely rearranging the deck chairs while the ship continues to take water.

It's just entertainment. Entertainment is big business, and big politics, but it isn't about reality. It's misleading to call those who are working the system for phun and dollars "realists". Stratfor claims that:

The result will be a global energy conservation movement that could be bigger than the movement behind climate change. It could also offer tremendous financial rewards to innovators.

I see it as the climate bubble, an inflated market for hype and illusion about energy conservation and sustainable consumption. Since it accomplishes nothing it will have a short life. The greater the discomfort that people feel, and the larger the windfalls reaped by those who exploit the situation, the shorter that life will be.

Real realism that considers physical reality as well as political reality offers no immediate solutions. There are none. Reducing emissions wouldn't help, and on a world wide scale is not achievable in any event. Emissions will continue to rise at an increasing rate. Concentrations will do so as well, and that's the real issue. To reduce concentrations requires technological development. There are proposals, prototypes, hypotheses and swags, but no working systems yet.

Not that this matters to the big players. Everyone who had a little information and sense always knew that ethanol was a bad idea, but it was a hugely profitable one for some businesses and politicians. So we now have ethanol subsidies and mandates. Expect more of the same as climate issues continue to be exploited, but don't expect any real progress. It's show biz.

Update:

Here's some reality. Coal Industry Wants Big Subsidies For Transportation.

The United States has 27% of the world's coal. Russia has 17% and China 13%. Coal can get turned into gaseous and liquid fuels. Tim Appenzeller, a writer for the National Geographic, says if we burned all the world's coal we'd increase atmospheric CO2 by a full order of magnitude.

Coal already generates about half of US electricity and that percentage might rise in coming decades. The coal industry wants big money to encourage greater use of coal for transportation as well. That would almost double CO2 emissions per mile driven.

The concept of carbon capture and storage (CCS) along with the GTL is mentioned, but that would make such fuels more expensive, needing more subsidies.