At base, all I'm saying is that the US government can create enough money to get it done. The companies or industries affected would not have to worry about the cost if the government were to fill the gap. They had plenty of money to bail out Wall Street, but don't seem to have the same will when it comes to dealing with climate change. Maybe it's the imminence of the threat, as you say.

As a larger point, I'm glad we are discussing money as a means of control. Most people don't understand it as such, but that's what it is. Our monetary system is a debt-fueled societal control mechanism. The question of course is who is doing the controlling and to what end. Since money is central to all this (and everything else) I would like to see it used more for the public good, and less for private gain. That's why I said we need a new paradigm; one that emphasizes the public good, not profit. Because the need for profit is preventing us from doing what is necessary.

You can call me a socialist utopian, and you'd probably be right. I'm not saying that my idea of how things should be has any chance of coming about. But I do think it's necessary for our survival. Focusing on private gain and immediate self-interest, which is the incentive in our economic system, is inadequate to tackling such a large and inter-dependent problem as climate change. It is not set up for concerted action. But we will cling to it because of powerful interests and a lack of imagination. We are circling the drain, and it is of our own choosing.

10 years ago, I knew the system was fucked. But it's nice that the general consensus is coming around to agree with me, more or less. It reminds me of when everyone else finally realized what a terrible president Gorge W. Bush was, or that the NSA really is spying on them.

The problems go deeper than you probably know; deep enough that you would again consider me a crank if I told you. The fraud and regulatory capture are only the beginning. Where it gets really interesting is where the corporate and financial bigwigs get together with the intelligence agencies and start spying and manipulating. They are driving world events with deception and propaganda, and doing things most would consider to be impossible.

I would think saving the planet would be motivation enough. But if nothing else, I think the US government should fund and subsidize the shift to a new energy infrastructure, through research grants, tax incentives, etc. It's clear that the need for profit is holding us back from making the changes we need to make. So take the profit out of the equation.

In a larger scope, it is interesting to me that profit is the only way we can think of to motivate people. It's as if we weren't creative beings at heart. Absent the profit motive, I think people would create and build things out of necessity, creativity, or a desire to make life better for oneself and others. Profit is actually a poor motivator because a well-done job or quality product is only a by product of a desire for profit. If a profit can be made with shoddy work or an inferior product, that's just as well; because the motivation is profit, not doing a good job.

The US government has shown that it will come up with large amounts of money when properly motivated. We need a Manhattan Project for climate change, since the private sector has shown itself incapable of the task. Government is more free to act precisely because it doesn't have to make a profit. It is not constrained in that way. It can, and does, print as much money as it needs.

Ah, so we should put all the people with the most money in a room, lock the door, and let them do whatever is in their best interest. Isn't that how free, democratic societies make policy these days? ;-)

A reduced labor force wouldn't be an issue. Judging from the current unemployment rate, and the myriad crap the economy pumps out that no one needs, it seems we don't need nearly as large a labor force as we have now.

The article keeps talking about cost. The energy has to be lower cost, companies won't switch if it costs them profit, coal is still lower cost, etc. The problem seems to be our economic system, not our technology level. We'd love to save the planet, but it will cut into profits, so we can't.

How crazy is this? The future of our civilization is at risk, but our economic system won't let us address the issue. It's as if Capitalism is more important than the civilization it supposedly serves. It is not even questioned that saving the planet has to make a profit. Oh, it will cost money? Well then, sorry, can't do it because everything done in America has to be profitable. It's like Capitalism is a suicide cult or something.

Since 2008 the Federal Reserve has tripled the money supply to save the oligarchs, I mean the economy. Would they print that much to save the planet? I mean, if it's really just a matter of money, the US can create all the money it needs. They pulled $700 billion out of their ass to bail out the banksters, I mean the economy. Why not bail out the planet? The fact is, neither technology nor markets will save us. They may be the tools we use, but what we need is a new attitude and perspective; one that's not a slave to money and profit. We could do all kinds of things if we weren't hamstrung by needing to make a profit. But it seems instead we'll just go over the cliff with our favorite ideology intact. Amazing.

Social engineering is going on all the time. A majority supported the Iraq war, after all. It's just a matter of what you're engineering.

We all know how this works; you tell the people they are under threat and identify your solution as the only way to save mankind. As someone told us a while back, the people can always be brought to do the bidding of the leaders. If the government put the word out, the media would get behind it. That's their job these days, after all. If the right person made a call to Roger Ailes, you could even get the Fox News ditto heads to support it.

What evidence could there be against a ham sandwich? I don't think you understand the meaning of that phrase. It means the prosecutor can get an indictment for just about anything. If they want someone indicted, they get them indicted. It implies that the prosecutor did not want an indictment in this case.

Yeah, wondering at what might be possible. Pssh! Who needs that? This is a serious site, after all!

Can we talk about the culture of crime that exists among rich white men in the financial industry? It seems that some of them have integrated crime to the point where it is seen as a legitimate way to support yourself or your family. Perhaps some of these brown and black people should call up the prosecutor working on their cases to tell him to stop the investigation. You know, like Jamie Dimon did. Maybe then they wouldn't be stopped and frisked like rich white criminals are not stopped and frisked. They just need more money, connections and better lawyers.

Like so much in America these days, it's as much about class as race. Bankers don't go to jail because of their wealth and status (and because they've successfully convinced everyone that prosecuting them would end civilization). They have done more damage to more people than some punk on the street will ever do. But we tut-tut to the brown and black people and scold them about their culture of criminality, while the biggest criminals wear three-piece suits and have lunch with the Commerce Committee chairman. Why is that?

Well, at least they're learning something valuable.

If you think something someone else is doing is harmful to you, and you have the ability, I think moving away is a valid choice. Your health is your responsibility. But at the same time, we are all interconnected. Our decisions and actions affect other people all the time; sometimes for good and sometimes for ill. If a chemical company is dumping in your back yard, you should get them to stop. But if someone is smoking next to you in line, it's really not hurting you.