That's the problem alright!  When the fed has used up all it's rate lowering emergency stimulus.  And the economy gets slower and slower because of basic fear of job loss in the population.

And inflation, based in energy price and basic commodiity prices soaring and currency under pressure from huge national debt and trade deficit, stagflation takes over.

This is the job creating, stimulating, economic/energy policy Obama needs to hear about, from Gore, Lester Brown, Amory Lovins, Dave Roberts, Joe Romm,and others.  

Get a good crew of advisors Barack.  Cheney had his secret energy meeting with big oil, coal, and nuclear power industry execs.

Why not have a public meeting during the campaign, do the opposite.  Take a cue from Larry David (George Costanza).  Just do the opposite of everything McBush would do.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

I was very happy about you not purposefully not using the word green and avoiding all the other buzz words as well.

I think it is both admirable and neccesary to get away from such vague definitions. In my opinion green, renewable, sustainable etc. are becoming way too overexposed and are, if they haven't already, losing all real meaning.

Sitting at the Al Gore speech here in D.C last week I couldn't help but wonder if the majority of people supporting the environmental movement need those words though.

Most people don't want to learn the details behind cap-and-trade, electricity grids, PHEVs etc. Basically learning why something is "green" or whatever other similarly vague term you want to use. This is why the audience was overly impressed but many, many "experts" in the field were very skeptical.

They just want to know that it is, and then to talk about how great it is and hold it over friends and neighbors.

Perhaps I'm just being too cynical but it does seem like a lot of people are on board due to the status that comes with being associated "green" causes brings. Will people continue to be interested without buzz words and imagery?

Frankly I don't think we want people who are only in it for the image, since if they outnumber the rational thinkers, the risk of making poor decisions might be expected to increase.

Kudos on the plan!

I think that that's a powerful idea.  Since people need jobs, it's very appealing, while we decrease cost.  Since we're decreasing cost, we can argue that solving the climate crisis will decrease the causes of inflation.

Another place were this works is in agriculture.  As Sharon Astyk and Richard Heinberg have argued, in a carbon-free economy, agriculture will have to become much more labor-intensive.  But a carbon-free agriculture will provide better (organic, healthier,local therefore better tasting) food, thus health costs will go down, as will food costs, while job opportunities will rise.