Peakguy said: "I would add that perhaps setting some type of standard of what "green" is would be a big help, since I don't think there is very good evidence that ethanol from corn grown on factory farms is very environmentally friendly"

This is going to be a very, very complex question. Few solutions are purely good, more have trade offs. You can find something wrong with ethanol, Kennedy can find something wrong with wind.

I do agree that setting some kind of green standard is important, but trying to state quantitatively whether nuclear is better than ethanol or electric vehicles, etc. will be impossible.

I think there is a significant contingent of people who don't want to see any solutions, others hold out for perfection. I hope for a middle path that lets people continue to live modern lives with as little damage as possible.

Now you can say that modern lives is the problem, but that is an opinion and one not shared by most people, which pretty much eliminates democracy as a route to your solution. I would rather eliminate perfection.

I agree that you shouldn't only shoot for perfection (which doesn't really exist, or at least not on a useful scale) but should encourage all the intermediate steps. Or you could put everything on a scale like the LEED ratings given to green buildings.
I think that the key here is that the method that is IMO the most sensible, and at the same time business friendly (ergo most likely to be supported by Sec [designate] Paulson [sp?]) is a cap and trade system that is likely, as you point out, to disfavour the more politically sacred projects like H-fuel cells and Corn ethynol.