Unfortunately, I don't think most of /. thinks that this answer is silly. Given how invasive TSA screenings are becoming I will not fly unless I have to (too much distance between meetings to drive). I won't fly anymore for vacations, I will either take the extra time to drive or find destinations that are closer. TSA may not place a ban on passengers or luggage, but after people are sufficiently humiliated enough they will remove themselves.

I know that the poll asks what security measures TSA will adopt next, but this is the likely outcome of their security measures.

Part of the advantage of spraying the salt water into the air is that the salt acts as nucleation sites for raindrops to form. Thus you get cloud cover to block the incoming sun plus you decrease the energy needed to precipitate the water back out of the air. I am against climate engineering, but I think that this is one of the better climate engineering ideas proposed.

Maybe we will get lucky and if the Treasury keeps putting high tech processing into the bills they may actually end up being worth their face value.

This is exactly what I have been screaming for a while. I am so afraid that our zeal for the environment will completely destroy the economy. I am an environmentalist and am all for protecting the environment but if the economy collapses who is going to be able to afford all of this new green technology? It is sad that so many influential people are missing out on that point.

Just because it is the path that America went down doesn't mean that it is the best path for other nations to follow. We can now see the problems that have occurred because of our dependence on oil, both in terms of foreign wars and environmental impact. I think that the argument against giving them gas-powered cars is valid. With all of the environmental clean-up efforts going on that would be the complete opposite of helpful. However, that said, there are other technologies that would be useful to them. I think that India would be a perfect market for electric cars. Electric cars are not big in America because the average American's commute exceeds the range and speed requirements for the average electric car currently in production. However, in a country like India where most of the population hasn't had cars, electric cars could provide a good standard of living increase while still meeting all of their needs and not using more of the worlds oil and while not contributing to CO2 production.

What would really be nice is more transparency in the bills that get passed. It seems to me that when legislation to set auto emission standards is over 600 pages long that there is a problem. The United states was founded on a constitution that was 4440 words and now we have a code of federal regulations that is over 75,000 pages (Christopher Lee, The Washington Post, July 8, 2003). I'm just saying it would be nice if the law were a little more succinct so that we could see the details of the laws getting passed.

Economically speaking, the world may be better off with Gore having lost. While I am well aware of the global climate changes happening, much of what is driving the climate change is also driving economies. Many politicians with environmental agendas are calling for pollution reductions that are beyond the limit of current technologies or beyond the financial limit of companies to implement in the given time. Many of the costs of compliance to new environmental regulations is being passed to the consumers. The question then becomes, how long can an economy support that kind of price inflation.

I will agree that we need to do whatever we can to reduce our emissions and to conserve our resources and limit how much we waste. However, is the collapse of world economies worth the strict policies that are trying to be implemented, especially when many of them have high costs for little environmental gain. I personally believe that if economies collapse then we will actually increase our emissions because no one can afford the new technologies.

The other cost that needs to be considered is long term costs to the environment. At first glance some of the new technologies seem to be the answer, but many of them are only delaying the problems. One example is solar power. It is great in the fact that there are no emissions that are caused by using a panel, but what about the disposal of all the panels when they start wearing out? What about the chemicals used to produce them? Then there is the issue of their efficiency. For the US to produce 20% of its power from solar panels it would require an area the size of the state of New Jersey filled with solar panels, that is just for 20%.

I agree that we need to do something about our emissions, but political leaders who have strong feelings about environmental issues but who lack the foresight to see potential problems should not be elected. They should continue to raise awareness though, as Mr. Gore has done.