but don't let facts get in the way of your ideology
and your arguments are nonsense:
"If you see no personal benefit, it must be a useless endeavor. Well, those that found the courage to speak out against big business polluting our rivers, air, food and children, etc, etc have saved countless numbers of lives."
You blame "big business" for pollution but many large corporations have been at the forefront of pollution control. Why? Because it makes sense economically. And stop the hyperbole. Please give examples of how "countless numbers of lives" have been saved
"Some things do cost more than they save at first, but through economies of scale and continued improvements in technology become cost beneficial. To ignore the reality of what is happening to our planet because no immediate catastrophe has happened is foolish."
Typical nonsense. Please speak factually about "what is happening to our planet" and to what extent man can do anything about it. Please don't bother with the Gore arguments about rising seas flooding NYC or killer hurricanes. That's total bs. And some technologies (e.g batteries to power automobiles) will likely NEVER be cost beneficial or efficient. At least not in the next 50+ years.
"They built the US highway system and it cost billions in today's dollars, yet took years to show how beneficial it was."
Who argued against it?
"There were those that laughed at the idea of mass transit or higher mileage cars or even smaller cars to offset the incredible amounts of fuel wasted every day in this country."
Mass transit is not a universally positive solution. It can be extraordinarily expensive without solving any problems - except for those who have an agenda of reducing cars and personal freedom. High speed trains do not save fuel, reduce pollution or reduce cost of transportation except in very narrowly defined situations. There are NOT incredible amounts of fuel being wasted every day. Internal combustion engines are very efficient, much more so that electric engines.
"It was considered un-American to drive a small front wheel car."
Who ever said that?
"anyone who steps forward to explore alternate ways of powering our country is labeled a liberal wacko or tree hugger."
Nonsense. But the people who insist on government subsidies for these, or who insist on replacing efficient, cost effective power sources with inefficient, high-cost, feel-good alternatives that don't reduce pollution, aren't practical in application, and don't reduce our dependency on foreign oil get criticised, and rightly so.
"They attack the ideas because it is not immediatly cost effective. It's being fought tooth and nail by the oil companies who stand to lose profits if the liberal wackos are successful."
You are woefully misinformed. Who do you think has billions invested in "alternative energy" technology? The "oil" companies, and many other large corporations. But not because they think they are a sensible approach, but rather because they see the political winds blowing in that direcrtion and are covering their assets. They have the good sense NOT to substitute a proven, cost-effective, efficient scheme of power production for one that is not however.