Now the environmental threat is a much more complex story.  As I've said, I think coal represents a much greater threat than oil in the long run, because there is so much of it.  The good news is that, in the US, we're talking about the political problem of losing states like West Virginia, or red areas of Pennsylvania, if we try to push coal away.  "When ya ain't got nothin', ya got nothin' to lose," as Dylan put it (the one line in the song, aside from the chorus, that I understood).

What I think will make the difference is a fight between different business interests combined with a growing understanding here that global warming is, in fact, a real and present threat.  (Think of it as the silver lining in the Katrina catastrophe.)  Knowing how politics works, the green energy producers are not going to simply sit outside of the lobbying arena -- not when Congress hands out money in the way it has been for the last few years.  I think people -- voters/consumers -- are also better able to make the connections today, and are more willing to make the sacrifice: They know that the hottest years in human history have all taken place in recent years -- 2005 being the hottest, if I'm not mistaken.  They know that global warming leads to warming waters, which, then, lead to stronger hurricanes and the destruction of New Orleans and the Mississippi coastline, for example.

And, finally, tying in with that last point, there seems to be an explosion of news coverage on the subject going on.  The news magazines and channels are covering the issue much more.  Trusted sources like Tom Brokaw are now out campaigning, for all practical purposes, on the issue.  The message is finally out that the debate over whether we're causing warming really is over.  (Even Bush was forced to admit it.)  My sense is that we're finally waking up to the issue and recognizing that so much of what we hate about the world today is connected: Oil and brutal regimes, brutal regimes and terrorism, oil and warming, warming and the destruction of lives and wealth, oil and the rising cost of living, and so on.

So it's by no means a certainty that we'll get our shit together, but I think we're in the beginning stages of what will become a massive transition.  Even many leading Republicans are waking up to the issue -- Hagel (with whom I often disagree but do respect), McCain, etc.  I maintain that we could get this done -- meaning largely off oil and into clean energy -- within a decade if we built the proper incentives into the tax code and regulated what (say) automakers are allowed to build through the CAFE standards: Massive cuts for green energy consumers and businesses, steep Pigouvian taxation for polluters, and so on.  Surely this isn't more difficult than the science of putting a man on the moon, and we managed to get that done within a decade.  And, at the same time, we could put our foot on the throat of countries like China and India by threatening to cut off trade or legislate high tariffs if they don't move to clean energy while also assisting them in developing that infrastructure.

We already know how to do it.  We know the science and the economics.  It's now simply a matter of putting policies in place that will allow us to do it faster than the market would on its own, in my opinion.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.