Great idea, though a few ideas yet away from being a usefull idea. Who doesn't want to increase efficiency and reduce pollution? But a couple of issues seem to be missing if the author wishes to convince me that this is not just another attempt to dig oneself out of a hole by using new shovels.

What? No discussion on emerging new technologies for energy sources. Fusion is looking more and more promising, and I'm referring to non-ITER affiliated research. Check out the proposed alternative using Deuterium and Boron-ll or other research efforts taking advantage of new perspectives and increased undersanding of nuclear fusion's potential. It ain't Chernobyl and Three Mile Island out there anymore...and it has the potential of making Yucca Mountain and issues of storage obsolete.

I do like the idea of polluters paying for pollution as an incentive for polluters to change their polluting ways. Wonder where you'd put the magical compound CO2, which I'd bet in most people's (and politician's minds) is first and foremost among things we consider pollutants in the air, while ignoring its function as the primary nutrient for plants. So would big companies be paid a benefit for producing and releasing into the air at least a portion of what their CO2 is worth as plant-food?

If my suspicions about how decisions are made at the federal level is any judge, I'd say within' a few years, decades at most, we will be paying companies to produce CO2...that's just how crazy it is and just how tentative is our understanding of this big complex system we call home which, if we pulled out heads out our collective fundaments, we might notice that climate-shifting is continuos while the modern immediate effects of coastal destruction, along with the bioaccumulation of metallic and organic compounds which are interferring with the system, are very serious conceerns and would actually benefit from a large international effort whereas the CO2 thing doesn't have much of a chance of getting done what it aspires to do (return the earth to its "normal climate"..ha ha! It's just so damn funny to think of it like that). Have another shrimp!

I have to confess, I derived a bit of guilty pleasure in reading about Druck's background for a lot of reasons.

When do we get to see the sex vid?

The extravagant waste of human resources that typifies war is always something we should avoid and from the environmental standpoint it's terrible beyond measure. Armed forces cause all sorts of pollution, tear through pristine ecosystems and target practice on everything that moves. As far as the CO2 thing, I hope the war doesn't cause so much dust and soot that the temperatures drop because an ice age would be really terrible for humans (the plants and animals, if allowed, would shift their habitat), but luckily CO2, which everyone is so worried about, is the main component of plant production along with oxygen, water and sunlight so at least we have that on our side. We may be uncomfortable in the heat but that's better than shivering to death in the cold.

First off i can't understand how people in this day and age can actually believe this crap specifically and any religion in general. Marriages should be consensual and the number of men/and/or/women in the arrangement should be up th those in the arrangement. Anything else amounts to an assault on one's personal freedom, the only thing that ultimately counts for anything. Keep it noodley.

as for: "love -- of the short-lived, professionally manufactured variety." May be the best some of us are going to be allowed to get, at the rate things are going.