The energy return on energy invested (EROEI) argument glazes over lots of eyeballs. Newberry provides a fresh perspective on what it will it take to make this concept sink in for the majority of people. I like his idea of amplification, which sounds a bit like perpetual motion at first glance, but in fact refers to using energy sources that provide a bootstrapping mechanism and that we can depend on for the long haul. Essentially, the argument goes that investing in amplification mechanisms (as a trivial example, a large magnifying glass facing the sun) which allow us to concentrate the only endless supply of energy we have into a sustainable path forward. Anything less than this simply depletes the finite energy supplies we have at our status quo rate (see Jevon's paradox for a rationale).
Engineers invented the concept of amplification to make loud music, transmit radio waves, and detect signals from deep space; if we start to frame this idea correctly, we might get creative juice from other segments of the engineering and scientific community who can add their own fresh perspective.
As Newberry implies, we have to add the "Life Cycle Analysis" to BushCo's "Bottomless Well" approach before we can turn the corner. Unless we start using the non-renewable energy to explore other options, we might leave here holding an empty bag of energy and no way to use the only reliable source left: the .