I read his book, and overall think it's a very creditable effort by a very good guy.  He does a bang up job laying out the case against petroleum.

But he's guilty of a serious (possibly fatal, given his position and influence) error in saying the petroleum is the enemy rather than coal.  Coal, as is often noted here on Gristmill, IS the enemy of humanity.  

The problem with oil is that it IS such a good fuel and there's too little of it; the problem with coal is that it's such a HORRIBLE fuel and there's so MUCH of it.  Therefore, environmentally, coal is far more disastrous as a result.

I read a paper by one of the RealClimate.org guys (title something like "a catastrophe in slow motion") and he points out that even if we were to burn all the coal and natural gas the world was thought to contain we couldn't double the atmospheric CO2.  

No, to really destroy the earth's atmospheric thermoregulation system, you need coal--we could quadruple the pre-industrial CO2 level or more and still have plenty of coal!

Certainly he's right that we don't go to war over coal--but that's simply because we've got a lot of it here.  (And you don't see people trying to take coal by force anywhere--yet--because there is still plenty of oil for the rich, for a while.)

 I must write in response to the disastrous exaggeration:
  "Far from being the merciless robo-governor some feared, Arnold Schwarzenegger has proved himself a green thinker, unveiling groundbreaking climate policies that put his state well ahead of the rest of the country." Quoted from the weekly Grist.

  Actually, I think "merciless Robo-Governor," has a nice ring to it. Governor Schwarzenegger is hardly a true friend of the environmental community in California or anywhere. He vetoed 50% of the environmental bills that got to his desk last year. His piece-meal signing of AB32, indeed a groundbreaking global warming bill, was done in an effort to salvage his environmental record going into a tight election. After signing this bill he vetoed many other very important greenhouse gas reduction bills.
  He also succeeded in taking credit for this bill as though it was his idea(note: photo-op con Tony Blair), even though AB32 was clearly the work of a coalition of over 45 environmental groups, plus some real enviro heroes in the Sac leg, prioritizing global warming and putting the lobby pressure on extra thick. Two weeks after signing the bill, Arnie passed an executive order to include carbon trading, which arguably hurts low-income communities.
  It is embarrassing, to say the least, that Grist (such a reputable environmental news source) would ever be convinced by (and further propagate) the strategic propaganda programs executed by the Arnie campaign in Fall '06. The fact that Arnie has come out with green rhetoric again, is simply an opportunistic way of furthering his political career.  
 Well, I for one, and I recommend the rest of the informed environmentalists out there in blog land, should not be so easily fooled. Until the bills start rolling off his desk in 2007 we should leave a very watchful eye on the governors office.
  *Let's remember he ran on a platform in '05 that said he wouldn't take special interest money (he was rich, so he didn't need to, right?), and then he proceeded to take more campaign handouts than any Governor in California history.  
   

A great thinker, but if you were to read the article from back to front, you would see it in a different light. The very FIRST thing we need to do is eliminate those plastic flamingos. This DOES have a 'one size fits all' solution. It is called "The FairTax Bill". It's in Congress already, we just have to face the fact that our consumption is the real enemy, not what we consume. Whether it is grain, guns, or gummy bears, we use too much and have nothing positive as a species to show for our wastefulness. Every bit of our government overhead should be based on consumption taxes. We need police because we have too much stuff to protect, we need roads because we have too many cars, and we need concentrated farms because we have too many people who would rather pay someone to cook their food and kill their animals for them.
If you really want Change, keep it in your pocket. Your dollar is your only vote, and so far, we are voting for a dead planet.

I'm sure you are right about coal being a dire threat to us all. But on the other hand (you've read Terry's book) coal doesn't give off any bad things when it is just sitting there. Your car DOES.

American business is built on consumerism. Although I agree with you about stopping this nonsense, we have an entire industry built on "get it now, pay for it later."
And don't get me started on credit cards.
But I do want more police. To protect my plastic flamingos.

I read this article hoping to find something about the solar roofs initiative in California.  

I guess I saw something about that on Treehugger or somewhere.  Big organizations with big buildings were supplying their own power and selling some back to the grid from rooftop collectors.  

It depended on tax incentives to get done, but the last I saw about it, it was just sort of beginning.  

If solar can get to 40% efficiency, with arrays that can go to scale, China and India will come on board maybe faster than most U.S. states.  

It'll happen first with big organizations, but that has the possibility of bringing the price low enough for real people.  

I, for one, would like a future with quiet, no-emission, local production of power.