Thirty years ago, when we had what appeared to be many decades of lead time to deal with climate change, America chose to spend her money on SUVs, McMansions and energy-using toys of all manner. It was just impossible to get anyone to accept that we were living beyond our planet's means because the consequences were too far out to see. Now, with a wealth of data and the crises clearly coming on in our or our children's lifetimes, we are starting to do those things which would have been effective had we started them decades ago.

Cap and trade easily tweaked? Maybe it would be if we were even in the ballpark of where we need to be in terms of emissions reductions. Unfortunately, we need reductions of 80-90% over the next 15-20 years if we want to leave this planet livable for the 22nd century (per James Hansen). Considering that the energy use of the wealthiest 10-20% of American households is not influenced by price (and they use more energy per person others), how can cap and trade get us to the 80-90% reductions without forcing the poorest 50% to zero emissions?

We can, right now, put a quota on liquid fuels and grid power. This would create an "all in the same boat" mentality and thus avoid class warfare as well as create public support for increased investment in zero-emission energy sources as a way to raise the quotas. Of course, the rich can get around it by installing multi-kilowatt PV arrays to power their electric cars. Good for them, good for us.

Haven't we yet learned that some things (medicine, the environment) are too important to be left to capitalists and their so-called free markets?

Most posters here seem to be confusing energy usage with energy needs. Like Iainbacchus, I enjoy my warm showers and lights, but we all use much more than we need. Let's stop being children and describe our wants and desires as such. As another poster already said, let's grab some of the low hanging fruit first. I find it offensive that I am expected to deal with the consequences of coal and nuclear generated power just so people can keep their houses at a constant 74F and surround themselves with lights 24/7. None of these primitive energy technologies would be economically viable if we did not allow the corporations to privatize the profits while socializing the costs.

I lived in Lubbock, TX back in '92. (When people tell me to go to hell, at least I know where it is.) I remember giving up on the local newspaper when I noticed that there were two or three front page articles per week about the POSSIBILITY of the school board allowing sex education to be taught in the high schools. How weird was that place? George Herbert Walker Bush (the elected Bush) once said, "When I want to take the pulse of America, I come to Lubbock."

I once lived in that "poorer version of Amsterdam" where people were bicycling everywhere. It was only one fairly isolated suburban-styled city in CA, but it was glorious. It was a city-wide response to the first time Americans had to respond to oil issues (the '70s). Only the uneducated and the infirm would use cars to transport themselves.

Sadly, in the early '80s the city adopted the so-called "smart growth" policies that so many are lauding today as a solution to our car-dependent ways. Several mini-downtowns were created all over the city, all of which were magnets of much higher than average car density. Suddenly, in a city where less than 20% of all trips were by car, you couldn't get anywhere safely by bike because you had to pass through these high density zones. This process was exacerbated by rising real estate prices 100 miles away which resulted in that city becoming nearly bike-free by the early '90s.

Do not fear a community without cheap car access; the loss of speed is more than made up by the clean air, peace and quiet.

When my lad was born he found the unfortunate combination of his having inherited my rather small mouth arch and his mother's flat nipples made for a starvation diet. Thank goodness for the lactation consultant recommended by our nurse/midwife. She rented us a great pump (no more flat nipples) and got some much-needed nourishment into the little guy. Although at times my wife felt more like a dairy cow than a mother, the pump to bottle approach allowed me to do my share of "feeding" which was extremely nice.

I don't recall any breastfeeding nazis, but perhaps the year of limited sleep has diminished my memory. I do recall that prior to needing one I thought that lactation consultants were a rather strange aid to require. That was just one of the many notions borne of ignorance that parenthood disabused me of.

McPain gives those of us who are merely jerks a bad name. We need a new descriptor for him. Unfortunately, I can't think of any without cursing at the moment.

My mother-in-law refused to care for my child. However, she made this decision in the interests of keeping the family peace. My sister-in-law decided it was not fair for my wife and I to get an occasional break (we both were working full time, remodeling a house and going to grad. school) when she didn't. The fact that my sister-in-law could afford to forgo employment because her house was paid for by her parents didn't register with her.

With jobs falling like leaves in Autumn, it sure is good to hear some good news for a change. Of course, there is much more to do but one has to start somewhere.