[Will]

re: requiring all newly built homes to have some kind of renewable energy capability built with it.
It's a good idea in theory. But, as always, the devil is in the details, and it would not be feasible to implement this as a federal law. The most that could be done is have a tax credit for builders making homes with this, or a grant to local governments if there are ordinances requiring such. This would give incentive to the private sector and municipal governments, respectively, to look into the renewable energy options. For both, the incentives alone aren't enough, but combined with increased value of the house, it pushes the return on the investment just that little bit higher to make it worthwhile. The value of the house would go up due to the improvements, which means developers can sell at a higher price, and the municipality can get more tax revenue from the property, and that's where the money really comes from.
Also, Renegade, you need not worry about the city folk needing to build turbines in their yard. You won't find a new house being built in the middle of a city, you'll find it being built on an empty plot outside of the city.

re: the company using TDP to turn agricultural and consumer waste into crude oil, methane, and minerals.
Sounds great, but the article is dated November 2003, and I haven't found any information on the company that goes beyond 2004. I'm going to guess that this particular venture, while still worth looking into after more research, is a bust.

re: Urban vs. Rural (and really, both vs. Sub-Urban) as far as taxes
I see nothing wrong with the fuel-efficiency tarrif, and I would add additional taxes on the price of gasoline as well. But I wouldn't implement it overnight, that is just asking for economic disaster. Even if people know increased costs are coming, it still costs a lot of money NOW to avoid those extra costs in the future. So if everyone had to pay more for it now, there would be problems. Have a 10-to-15 year plan, where the gas tax and fuel efficiency tax are slowly increased; by the end of the cycle, the majority of vehicles would be replaced anyway, and there is a good incentive along the way to encourage people to choose fuel-efficiency. So what if it ends up costing more for people who live 20km from the nearest place that could be called a town? The cost of living in rural areas are vastly smaller compared to urban and suburban areas, plus you can get a huge house for under $100,000, along with an acre or more of land around it. People choose to live there, and if the negligable costs comprared to cities is too much, they can move a little closer to the city.

And really, when you look at taxes, a disproportionate amount comes from urban areas, since that is where the majority of the wealth is created. A small part of that is invested back into cities as services, but most of it goes to... not rural areas. Rural areas in general recieve more money for services than is paid in those areas in taxes. A lot of that is in the form of Social Security, Medicare, etc., but also in education, safety (police and fire depts), military (a lot of bases are in remote areas), and transportation (especially if there is a significant route between larger cities). But rural areas only get a little bit more than they put in. The biggest chunk of tax dollars go to suburban areas. For example, the area I live in, Los Angeles County. LA and its five "satellite cities" comprise the largest industrial complex in the United States, has the largest international port on the West Coast, the largest financial center west of the Mississippi, etc. All of these are in urban parts of LA. And most of the tax income from these industries goes to... the Valley, and the southern part of the county bordering Orange, suburban areas. It's used to build new roads, new schools, new infrastructure, for a population that has been exploding since WWII.

re: tarrifs on imported goods unless certain policies are in place
I don't see the "stereotypical arrogant American attitude" in implementing tarrifs. It's simple economics. The point of all these little taxes and incentives is to guide the free market to make certain choices over what would otherwise be the most cost-effective choice. Most (or some would say all) rational people would agree that at some point, the developed world needs to stop using fossil fuels. If the US takes this view to heart, and implements these costs on American industry, then foreign products have a cost advantage. The tarrif isn't meant to change policy in other countries, but to offset the penalty that American products would inherently have. If, for example, Canada implemented similar taxes, then there would be no need to balance things out. And it wouldn't throw out NAFTA or any other trade treaty, since treaties supercede Acts of Congress in US law. Canada and Mexico would not be affected by the tarriff, and are free to do as they wish (however, reforms like this would be more likely to happen in Canada first, and right now the Mexican government is so weak, if the US does it, they probably could be coerced into doing the same soon after). Any country without a trade treaty that explicitly forbids tarrifs based on the country's policies would be subject to the tarrif.