Ah ok - so you decide to attack a sarcastic remark with what turns out to be blather and strawmen arguments that didn't say anything about anything without an actual argument for what could work. Do I have that right?
No, you don't, but it was a nice try.
Allow me to expand on my initial point. Energy is a complex issue involving corporations (private sector), environment and employment (civil society) and foreign policy (government). Thereby your concept of these forces as a binary system (government and private sector) is flawed, it is actually a trinary system (civil soceity, government and the private sector) all of which influence and affect one another with their actions. Neoliberalism proposes to shift all decision making to the private sector, in a similar way Communism attempts to shift all decision making to the government. Neither are viable, and that includes shifting all decision making to civil society, typically called "People-Center Development" though no one has evolved this into a functional system, as of yet though theocracy is a close attempt.
So I refer back to my original comment. The only form of economics, society and politics that has ever worked in a way in which all people benefit is one that balances the trinary system that makes up the way people, government and businesses interact.
Thus, it really irritates me when people (and political parties) suggest repeatedly that the ONLY solution to ALL of our problems is to unleash the free market/statism/churches. There are plenty of times when this is a viable solution, but similar times when government and civil society are the solution. The most common solution is for the three to work together to build a better world.