First unlike global warming there is not a majority consensus among the scientific community about the date when oil will peak. In the 1970s, the Energy Department did not come up with an accurate prediction of where domestic production would be in 2000. What makes anyone believe that without many authoritative studies that peak oil is this year or next year? I would say to the benefit of technology, we have come a long way in drilling for oil in places that were previously not a viable option. Most oil companies have had exceptional replenishment rates domestically for their reserves by being able to exploit more opportunities in the Gulf of Mexico. And finally on this point, I have not seen any indication from any oil company that exploration opportunities around the world have been exhausted. If so, there would be a whole lot of unemployed geologists. And thanks to global warming, all the trapped natural gas and oil under Siberia's permafrost is becoming more accessible.

Second, even if oil runs out tomorrow, you still have to deal with global warming. All that carbon in the atmosphere is not going to disappear simply because we don't burn oil anymore. So all that valuable farm land in California may be worthless as arable land shifts from changing climate and weather patterns. And since overfishing and pollution have already decimated the oceans and CO2 only increases the acidity of the ocean, I wouldn't look to the sea for your salvation. I would think Permian Extinction.

Personally, I wouldn't want to live in 13th century Europe or regress to the Stone Age (plus, those ages of man could not support the 6 billion people on this planet today). So, if that is the choice, I would consider suicide. The present is truly awesome. It could, of course, be more awesome with a teleport machine, hover cars, and space travel. But I am content with the bounty that oil provides. And there is not much people can do to avoid their inevitable extinction.

If you are a secular humanist, you could be at peace with oblivion or troubled by it (I would suggest the former). If you are religious, then you can be content that whatever happens is all God's plan. And hey, maybe you will die of Avian Flu or an asteroid will hit the earth before any of this ever comes to pass. Think positive! =)

After reading this, I am still asking that question. If the accelerated release of carbon into the atmosphere from the industrial revolution is causing climate change now, what good will reducing emmission levels to 2000 levels by 2010 do?

My question is still whether this problem has a feasible solution. If we reduce emissions to say 1970s levels, we will still be increasing the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere. As far as I know, that will still be at a rate faster than the oceans and biomass can sequester it. Also, all of the carbon we have released will still be sitting around for several hundred years before it is naturally processed out the atmosphere.

I am certainly perplexed by the issue. The news portrays all of these ill portends, like less ice in Antarctica and dying coral reefs. But these events are already set in motion. At this point, is there anything we can do?

Putting aside the regionalism this article has stirred, I agree with the premise. Good management is about efficiently allocating scarce resources. If the DNC were a money tree, then I would certainly support throwing money into every congressional district in the country. But since that is not the case, we must be practical. For the national party, it is simply a waste of resources to support candidates in every race. That strategy diminishes the resources available to truly competitive candidates. And as the author suggests, winning the South would take more resources than the national party has at its disposal.

I don’t think the author has proposed abandoning the South, and nor would I. There certainly congressional districts that we can win, and we should pursue them. But should we spend a lot of time trying to unseat Trent Lott or John Cornyn? No. That is job for the Mississippi and Texas State Democratic Committees respectively.

Why is it incumbent upon the middle class or any other class in America for that matter to coalesce into a movement resembling that of a bygone era?

As other readers have previously posted, most Americans are occupied by their occupations. And when most of us get off work, we want to spend quality time with our friends and our family. We have a representative government for a reason. And what are elected officials for if not to work through these issues for us? I think we all made our opinion clear at the ballot box, what more is required? If that wasn't a clear enough message, what is sitting outside the capitol going to convey more clearly?

Bush is just one man. If people want change, it is at their own finger tips.