With that news flash in mind one might want to consider some of the recent "updates" on supporting evidence that if they continue will shatter the so called slam dunk proof that we should be worried about climate shifts. 

Whats laughable to me is that this theory of global warming has only been around for not even 2 decades but yet some rabid folks are ready to sell their souls to get on the cap and trade and what not wagon. 

Consider some of the FACTS presented here that may not support the theory. 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25401759-5000117,00.html

The rest of you can run for the hills if you want but I'm getting ready for a cooler then normal 2009 and beyond. (written from my cabin in northern MN where we had 4ft of snow in April and we still have snow cover)

Bud,

The Supreme Court ruled in Mass v. EPA in 2007 that the Environmental Protection Agency's steadfast refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions [N.B. under the previous administration!This has now changed]  presents a risk of harm to Massachusetts that is both “actual” and “imminent.”

... the NRC Report itself—which EPA regards as an “objective and independent assessment of the relevant science,” 68 Fed. Reg. 52930—identifies a number of environmental changes that have already inflicted significant harms, including “the global retreat of mountain glaciers, reduction in snow-cover extent, the earlier spring melting of rivers and lakes, [and]the accelerated rate of rise of sea levels during the 20th century relative to the past few thousand years . . . .” NRC Report 16.

Petitioners allege that this only hints at the environmental damage yet to come. According to the climate scientist Michael MacCracken, “qualified scientific experts involved in climate change research” have reached a“strong consensus” that global warming threatens (among other things) a precipitate rise in sea levels by the end of the century, MacCracken Decl. ¶15, Stdg. App. 207, “severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems,” id., ¶5(d), at 209, a “significant reduction in water storage inwinter snowpack in mountainous regions with direct andimportant economic consequences,” ibid., and an increase in the spread of disease, id., ¶28, at 218–219. ...

 and rising ocean temperatures [that] may contribute to the ferocity of hurricanes. Id., ¶¶23–25, at 216–217.18

Oh, and we have a permaculture farm too.

Is there a down side? Well, you do need to consider how your activities affect the others close by, and we do make major decisions about the community together, but we still have our own living quarters, schedules, and lives. Not enough is being written about co-housing as a positive choice for the dreaded lifestyle change. 

Investors still look to the DOW.   And planners to archaic living structures.

I disagree that high density, high energy consumption cities are the future.   Being close together does not always mean having accessibility to the necessities of life.   Case in point, it's much easier for me in the exurb of Kent, to jump in my car, drive 1/2 a mile to a warehouse size supermarket and load up on food and goods for a week.

Energy stored everywhere and generated by everyone?  The answer could be Hydrogen.  I see the "Hydronet" as akin to the Internet, prior to Netscape.   The highway has already been built.   And people can add to it with solar and wind generators...or just use it locally.

Ownership...of land...by the average person, will increase their ability to produce and consume as locally as possible, with trips to nearby centers for larger goods.   With ownership and wealth comes the ability to abandon the "job" and to generate income in the home...reducing travel overall.

These changes, made possible by H2 generated without CO2 through the Nocera process will propel change.    Change will come when a family of 4, fed up with the city, sees 2 acres of land in Agraria (beyond Exurbia) for sale in a liveable township, for little or no money.   A New Homesteading will occur.

welcome to the world of tomorrow. it's going to be a lot slower and not as much useless cr*p.

Density in itself doesn't necessarily make an area more sustainable, but MIXED-Use density with a variety of transportation options (bus, walking, bike, etc) does.  Vehicle Miles Traveled, and therefore CO2 output, is most strongly influenced by proximity to daily services/work, and the availability of non-motorized infrastructure and competitive public transit.  And public transit can't have the ridership to support it without density.  And, density transferred from sprawling suburbs leave more green open space and farmland, and require significantly less new infrastructure to be built, which obviously has some significant resources savings associated.  There are plenty of wonderful books that give much more information, which I encourage you to read, as well as talking to people who have first hand experience with sustainable city planning.

And while on that note, yes, old school planning segregated uses and favored automobiles and parking, but for the past couple decades, things have been changing.  Sustainable cities through appropriately mixed-use density with housing and transit options is becoming the focus.  Most graduate programs in planning partner with sustainable systems (LEED buildings, landscape architecture, lifecycle analysis of builidng materials, etc).  In fact, Sierra Club called Planning the #2 most influential career for addressing climate change.

What we need in order to take these principles into true sustainability on the ground is the public to support officials and planners who want to change zoning codes and investment strategies to priorities green infrastructure, public transit and walkable mixed use.