Once again we have plans that assume the “American way of life” involves being sedentary and using motorized wheelchairs to get everywhere. We’ve only been a car-dependent society for fifty years, less than one quarter of America’s existence.

“…Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, … invest in low emissions coal plants…”

Oh lovely. Has he read the latest reports in Science about biofuels? They cause even more global warming than fossil fuels. This is hardly part of any rational solution. And plug-in hybrids would just add to the amount of coal burned. Again, he would make the catastrophe worse. “Low emission coal plants” is propaganda which is hardly worth addressing. Clinton’s plan is no better.

So what do we need to do? First off, we need to stop pretending we have until 2050 to get anything done. This is conveniently after most of us are dead and ignores the latest research which indicates the ‘tipping points” will likely be achieved if we don’t cut back on GHG in America (with the rest of the world following suit) by 80-90% by 2020.

Such cutbacks are doable, but not if everyone insists on burning as much fossil fuel as they can afford to. We need to copy what our grandparents did during WWII and institute carbon quotas. It can start with gasoline/diesel and grid power and expand to consumables later. Quotas allow even the poor to generate reasonable (sustainable) amounts of GHG while guaranteeing an overall reduction. If we use cap-and-trade, we end up with the poor being squeezed out while the rich live like Al Gore and people have no reason to believe we are all in it together because we won’t be. Once we add consumables to the carbon quota, China will find their carbon footprint reduced as Americans can no longer afford the “carbon cost” of coal-generated goods that travel around the world; this also would stimulate American manufacturing.

I know that no one can get elected if they bring “bad news”, but we desperately need to wake up to the reality that our unsustainable days will end soon or else humanity’s days are nearly at an end. We can choose now, but our grandchildren will not have any choices if we choose wrongly.

The Titanic analogy is interesting, but I think it misses both by having an outside agent responsible and by saying that some are doing some bailing.

I think a more accurate assessment of the situation would liken us to passengers on a large ship where folks have taken to using buckets to bring water into the ship. Conservation would mean slowing the rate of this anti-bailing. Technology fixes means either drilling small holes in the bottom of the buckets or hoping someone will eventually drill some holes. Nuclear power means continuing to anti-bail with a plan to set the ship on fire later. Cap and trade would mean that most people continue to anti-bail at the same rate while some slow down and others stop altogether. Tipping points are reached when the ship sinks so low in the water that the ocean comes in at the open windows along the side of the ship.

Unfortunately, the captain and crew (our political class) are afraid to take this wonderful entertainment away from the passengers for fear of a mutiny. So, we all merrily anti-bail our way to Davy Jones' locker.

If, as stated in the article, oil accounts for 40% of American energy use, and we import 2/3 of the oil we use, we need only reduce our energy use by 25% in order to be unaffected by the international oil "scarcity" to come. Considering the fact that, in order to avoid the most severe catastrophe in human history (that would be climate change), we need to reduce our energy use by 80-90% over the next fifteen to twenty years, this should be a good warm-up.

As someone already wrote, if we cannot survive peak oil, we don't deserve to. However, we are going to need some sort of social safety net to be re-established or we will find poor people starved to death in their homes (or cardboard shanties) like they do in Japan. We can do better than that, but whether we do or not will depend on our ability to shed the years of fears of the Bushes.

Since my partner and I were both working full time, in graduate school and remodeling a house when our child was born, we would have had to send our baby to day-care to make time for television. I agree with my distant cousin Philo Farnsworth (the inventor of the electronic television), there is too little of value shown on a television to allow one into my home. You are so right to value the bonding time with your child over your former boob-tube habit.

"But in long run, without major steps to curb global warming and preserve the polar bears' Arctic homes, 'you're not going to have any sport hunting anyway.'"

People who will spend $30,000 to kill an animal may have more dollars than sense, but they are economically rational and consistent. When the polar bears are all gone, the trophies from "sportsmen's" kills become more valuable. They're just protecting and tending to their investment.

Seriously, as harmful as hunting polar bears is, the main issue is America's total lack of response to climate change. I suspect the hunters are more concerned about not being able to drive their Toyota Tundra pickup than with whether or not any polar bears are around in thirty years. The listing of polar bears will allow the next administration to start making some headway in dealing with the issue to end all issues.

Having a "conservative" republican dis the Clintons on the deficit is pretty funny. I guess she is counting on her constituents all having gone to school at Fox Noise.