...on that list of legislative priorities needs to be an immediate shift in prioritization of our national reserach establishment (which dwarfs that of the rest of the world) to developing these new technologies.  I would actually slide this one into the #1 position.

Also, Jason, I have to say it drives me nuts when economists blithely say things like "we could not decrease the likelihood of climate change with existing technologies" when there is so much fruit hanging so low that it's already rotting on the ground.

BTW, we should distinguish between real "new technologies" and those that simply require research into the best/cheapest way to make them available on a mass basis.
     

A failure of vision.
Coal, as the report notes, is essential. It provides about 40 percent of global electricity. It's cheap (about a third of the cost of oil) and abundant. It poses no security threats.

The world can use 40% less electricity via efficiency and conservation.  Need more?  Solar is about a third the cost of oil and abundant, globally.  Solar poses no security threats.  

The threat of global destruction from fossil CO2 is definitely a most serious security threat.

Expansion of solar can be much faster (and much cheaper) than expansion of coal, globally.

... doesn't come in?   The laws of physics are not nearly as malleable as the "laws" of economics.  Nature only takes one position, and does not compromise with fools who ignore the many warnings she has given.

Let's revise your sermon today and see how you like it then:

Put another way, given [climate disruption] projections, we could not decrease the likelihood of climate change with existing [economic beliefs], as some [economists] claim; they are simply too expensive, and [ecological economics] is in its infancy. This poses serious challenges, since [economic doctrines], once they are established, can become locked-in and hard to alter. This is not meant as cause for despair, but as another reminder that addressing [overshoot] will require [rejection of infinite-growth fantasies], and hence sacrifice, at least in the short to medium term. Yes, new [economic understandings] will be developed, and yes there will be ancillary benefits, but the upfront costs will be far from trivial. The [economists] should begin to prepare the broader public for these costs so that they aren't surprised when [nature strikes back], prompting a backlash.

>> we could not decrease the likelihood of climate change with existing technologies >>

D'oh

By the time y'all wake up to this glaringly obvious fact, y'all be extinct.

Ban OIL NOW NOW NOW

burn coal for a while

BUT bring on No Footprint Technology....

READ MY LIPS, if you can't read words!!!!!!!!

Many voters do not know that discovery and invention are not necessary for replacing 80% of fossil fuels.

There is new science available to product developers.  The science exists, much of it at NREL.  The path is engineering, production, and deployment.  Requires capital beyond the circles of dotcoms and Bush friends.  

Our paths will appear to be much easier than imagined once we get started.

New discovery and invention will also happen.