Actually, if you bought a house and lived in it while making timely mortgage and tax payments for a decade and you had enough income and tax/interest payments to itemize your deductions, it is not just like renting. You see, you got a substantial reduction in income taxes that a renter did not get. Granted, this deduction was worth a lot more before the fascist era of income tax reductions. Also, it is entirely possible that you could have rented a comparable house for less than the mortgage/interest payments, but I think you see my point.

Also, I think the choice between bailing out real estate owners or foreclosing on them is a little crude. It will be the details that count. Details such as restricting capital gains allowed to go untaxed by those who get bailed out and only bailing out owner-occupants who own only one house. At this point, I am not optimistic that anyone in the Obama administration is concerned about such fairness issues.

I had know idea people paid so much for TV. I haven't had one for fifteen years and have never missed it. I am reminded of an essay by Art Hoppe from decades ago in the S.F. Chronicle. He laid out the accomplishments of fictitious people during various eras of American history during the pitifully small amount of spare time they had. The story culminated in modern America where we spend nearly all of our abundant free time watching TV.

Alternatively, maybe TV is the "last invention ever" from the Big Ball of Wax.

I feel like the robbery victim who lost thousands and is expected to be grateful for a victim's compensation fund that grants him $50. It's better than yet another slap in the face, but my air is still going to be toxic, my water is still going to contain carcinogens and the roadways will still be full of terrorists in multi-ton adipose-making machines.

I am happy to be “called out”. You are correct on at least two counts: 1.) We can indeed develop clean transportation, interior climate control and industrial energy systems. In fact, there are no required technological breakthroughs required. 2.) Unfortunately, James Hansen agrees with you that we cannot implement the infrastructure changes in time. In fact, because of the time lag involved between raising the atmospheric CO2 equivalents and the climate consequences, we may have already locked in some very ugly scenarios for our children/grandchildren.

Thus, I am not overly excited about implementing changes over the next four decades when we have less than two decades to get our emissions down by 80-90%. IMHO, it won't mean much to be emitting at a sustainable rate AFTER we have already kicked in the positive feedback loops. Check out the news of just the past two years: 1.) Arctic sea ice at lowest levels measured. Remember that exposed sea water absorbs much more heat than ice, thus this is a potential “tipping point”. 2.) Both the Russians and the Brits have found plumes of methane being released from the Arctic Ocean. Since methane is 19 times more potent than CO2, this is another potential positive feedback loop. 3.) Greenland's ice sheet is melting at rates that just a few years ago were thought to be impossible until next century. Also, have you seen the latest decrease in the percentage of CO2 emissions being absorbed by the oceans? Positive feedback loops are nothing to play around with.

We ignored the early data and models of climate change during the '70s. To be fair the model was crude and the data was almost nonexistent. Then we spent the '90s rapidly expanding our carbon footprints in spite of the fact that nearly every person with a decent scientific education knew that anthropogenic climate change was for real. During the usurper years of 2001-2009 only a relative handful of zealots disputed the urgency of reducing our emissions. Now, it is too late for half measures. Every mile we drive, every btu we burn, every kWhr we waste MAY (as in, is more likely than not) contribute to a nearly unlivable world for our children. Believe me, I generally don't give a damn what other people do. However, when the actions of a few hundred million Americans can royally screw all of humanity, I feel a moral obligation to call my fellow citizens out.

Just a few decades ago we Americans happily lived without driving everywhere we went. Many people found ways to stay warm (or cool) without using anywhere near the energy we use today. Are we lesser people? Look at our heart disease, cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity rates. We have become pathologically sedentary. No wonder people get angered at the suggestion that we should collectively move our asses, hefty though they may be.

I'll cop to rude and socially unacceptable; I admit to being scared for our collective future. It is just that, for the past fifteen years, every consensus on where climate change is taking us comes with a “most likely” scenario and a “worst case” scenario. Consistently, within 6-12 months the previous “worst case scenario” becomes the new “most likely” scenario. It is as if we keep expecting a linear response when the curve is exponential.

Didn't this filmmaker's nanny sign off on torture and extraordinary renditions? Those are some interesting family values that clan has.

Wow, I never realized how dangerous cannabis is to my investment positions. It's like George Bush and a compliant Congress. Mercy me.