It is becoming painfully obvious from the latest climate data that America must reduce its emissions by 80-90% over the next 15 years in order to avoid the worst "tipping points" of climate change. Since the top 15% of wealth holders are virtually immune to price changes and also use disproportionate amounts of energy, cap and trade or, indeed, any other market-concept route to emission reduction can not prevent catastrophic climate change.

So, what can we do? I think it is time to take a lesson from our past, specifically from the last time America thought its existence was threatened. During WWII we put quotas on many goods in order to use our resources for the war effort. It is time to put household quotas on liquid fuels and grid power. These quotas should be nontradable and could be implemented immediately.

Sadly, it looks like given the choice between driving our way to heart disease, cancer, diabetes and extinction or walking/busing/training/cycling our way to sustainability, most Americans are choosing the former.

Since the burning of oil-derived products such as gasoline has large impacts on public health and the environment that are not paid for by either the oil industry or the end-users, I would argue that we are heavily subsidizing fossil-fools in America. Unfortunately, since a major pollutant from the oxidation of fossil-fool is particulates that have been shown to lower I.Q. scores, I guess we are doomed to a population that is too stupid to make this industry pay its full costs.

Yes, Americans are driving billions of miles less per month (11 billion fewer in March 08 relative to March 07), but that is still a negligible change considering the trillions of miles driven per year here. If you were one of the brave souls who was doing the right thing by riding a bike, and you had 24 fossil-fool powered wheelchairs graze your shoulder per block instead of the usual 25, would you even notice the difference?

Considering the impact of relatively small changes in gasoline demand on the price of gasoline, what would the price of gasoline be now if we had increased the federal gas tax by $.10 per gallon each year for the last fifteen years and dedicated the funds to putting our trolleys back in as well as building some safe bike/ped infrastructure? We can still do it if we can overcome our fear of moving about without our two-ton wheelchairs. Of course, it is so much more American to prefer diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, obesity and, very likely, climate-change induced extinction rather than impose a real gas tax.

The Republicans should consider returning to the party of Lincoln and TR. Remember Lincoln disparaging capital relative to labor? Or his biblical opposition to racism? How about some trust-busting a la Teddy Roosevelt? Or maybe a little conservation and National Park/wilderness creation? Hell, even Goldwater opposed reckless deficit spending.

Of course, if they did all that, how would we be able to tell them apart from S.F.-value Democrats?

I suspect the current price of oil prompted this article. Bear in mind that only the U.S. is experiencing $118/barrel oil; this is because the dollar has been in free-fall for most of the usurper's time in the White House. Europe is paying the equivalent of $70/barrel. Nothing like tax breaks for the wealthy, corporate welfare and a senseless expenditure of trillions of dollars to ruin an economy and obliterate the middle class.

That said, the author is essentially correct about what we will face. "If these figures hold, there is no hope of averting the worst effects of climate change." In fact, these "worst effects" include our extinction. It's high time we started using the hundred million barrels of oil on our fat American bellies and bums instead of continuing our DRIVE to the end of history.

Adding BPA to food containers is about as bright as putting lead into our air supply via leaded gasoline. Both were/are allowed for the same reason: we permit everything to be dumped into our environment until some underfunded (and soon to be unfunded) academic "proves" that it causes substantial harm; then we wait several years to phase out the harmful substance so as to avoid "harming" those who profit from it. I guess you could say we use the precautionary principle a la Alice in Wonderland.

Also, you say, "The introduction of bisphenol A into the human environment in significant quantities tracks pretty closely, in timing, to the advent of the so-called obesity epidemic in the United States". BPA may be a factor, but quite a few more relevant things also track alongside our current obesity epidemic:

1.) Increased use of cars

2.) Loss of safe streets for children to play in

3.) Increased consumption of highly processed foods

4.) Loss of stay-at-home parents resulting in near universal use of sedentary day-care environments for our children.

5.) The end of the bicycle boom of the late '60s to early 80s.

"In light of Hamilton's amazing comment, could journalists possibly now report on this story?"

The answer is NO. Journalists, outside of GG and Amy Goodman, have been rarely sighted in the U.S. over the past thirty years. Let's hope this apparent extinction is not forever. Besides, how could such a story be made to fit between such compelling issues as pantsuits, haircuts and minister rants.