This sounds like a clear-minded, lucid and precise game plan. I can't wait to read the book. I'm reading E.O. Wilson's "Creation" right now. It's an exquisite little book that should lay the groundwork for going forward in this way.

I disagree about the chemical fertilizers and GMOs. I think Vandiva Shiva has a better understanding of sustainable agriculture when she says we can feed the world with organic farming but it sounds like your overall plan and timeline is right on. Thank you for the good work.

"I'd combine this active technology program with a cap on carbon emissions, which I think would be far more effective than a tradable permit system."

What does this mean?  Quotas on emissions per class of technology?  I can't imagine a professional economist would see this as more efficient than Cap/Trade.  I must be missing something here...

A leader is a person who has a vision.

A leader is a person who can bring two rival parties and talk calmly to both of them.

A leader is a person who has immense knowledge and at the same time immense patience for learning.

If USA has to provide leadership to the world in troubled times, it itself needs a leader who is all the above three.

It is unfortunate that we suffer a system of democracy that yet cannot produce people like Jeffrey Sachs as captains.

Saving the planet or saving the people.. If we put our priorities right, we will save both of them. If we don't, we will save none.

you failed to mention the major problem - us.  Ultimately, until there are fewer of us, not anything, nor even everything, we try is going to work.

well over a million acres of vital desert ecosystem is currently under siege by Big Solar in the SW USA alone, not to mention the myriad wind, mining, oil, coal and gas destruction in these areas.  this is insane, and is only the very beginning of the Big Energy Gold Rush that is going to kill off a gorgeous, perfect habitat for plants, birds, animals, insects and other living organisms.  have we learned nothing?

we cannot continue to destroy whole ecosystems and call it "sustainable."  land that has not already been harmed by man should be left alone to do what it was intended to do, and new energy, including (especially) renewables, need to be built on previously developed land, preferably at point of use and secondarily on brownfields and superfund sites (there are thousands of them in the US).

please make this crucial distinction.  Big Energy wants to greenwash its horrible, wasteful and devastating power infrastructure by referring to it as "Renewable," even while it depletes groundwater and permanently obliterates wildlife and wilderness (not to mention the terrible effects of its monopolies, eminent domain and expense on humans!).  please, let's not let them get away with it.

"I'd combine this active technology program with a cap on carbon emissions, which I think would be far more effective than a tradable permit system."

I guess that Sachs said "tax" not "cap", and that a "tradable permit system" implies cap and trade.  This was likely a transcription error.

There are some underlying points in Sachs' comments that are key:
We need to consider how the myriad issues we face are interrelated, and collect data/experiment to determine root causes.
Make decisions based on data, not beliefs (which relates to Sachs' comments about not dismissing any energy source out of hand.  
While not addressed directly, absolutely essential is to be clear-eyed about our current growth trajectory, to understand the implications of this trajectory, and to identify the MULTIPLE actions that will be needed to put us on a different path.

CHANGEpartner