While ultimate power in Iran has rested with the religious fundamentalist Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the fact that a radical like Ahmadinejad was popularly elected by the Iranian people is disheartening. Though perhaps not as disheartening to re-electing George Bush.

So the knee-jerk conclusion is that Iran is a population of radical Islamists which poses a serious threat to the western way of life. But dig a bit deeper, and you see that this is not the case, and worse, the United States has contributed significantly to the rise of Mr Ahmadinejad.

Failed US Policies in Iran

In fact, the radicalism in Iran has to a significant extent been exacerbated by misguided US policies and meddling.

As I wrote in my article “in support of dictators and tyrants ”,

The United States supported the Shah of Iran (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi), the last Shah of 2500 years of continuous monarchy rule. According to Madeleine Albright, “In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh… it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.” While the Shah did succeed in modernizing his country and improving the rights of women, he also ousted and arrested political dissidents, which ultimately lead to popular unrest and his overthrow.

In other words, we were supporting a monarch who had repressed political dissidents, which led to the radical 1979 Islamist revolution. The US then needed to form a counterweight to Iran’s power in the Middle East:

Once the Shah was overthrown and the fundamentalists took control of the country, the US chose a very strange bed fellow to support in the middle east: Saddam Hussein. Saddam was another brutal dictator who came to power in 1979. During the Iran-Iraq war initiated by Iraq, the US provided military and economic aid to Saddam. Importantly, during this war, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran. In total, between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Iranians died in this war supported in part by the United States. Not exactly a role model for a US ally.

So you can see how the Iranian’s would be a bit negative towards the west. And in fairness, in the years since 1979, Iran has actively supported groups hostile to the United States and Israel (e.g., Hesbollah). So the aggressive US stance towards Iran is understandable. But ultimately, it has been more than ineffective. It has been counter-productive.

Rise of the moderates in Iran

By 1997, there was something of a counter-revolution brewing. The Iranian population, weary of oppressive and restrictive Islamic rule, elected the moderate reformer Mohammad Khatami as president on the strength of the younger voters and women in a repudiation of Islamic fundamentalism.

Importantly, Khatami developed and presented the theory of Dialogue Among Civilizations:

Basically, laying the ground for peaceful, constructive debate among nations; providing a context in which civilizations can learn from each other’s strengths and weaknesses; replacing fear, blame, and prejudice with reason, fairness, and tolerance; and facilitating a dynamic exchange of experiences among culture, religions, and civilizations aimed at reform and amelioration. Khatami believes that such dialogue would strike a balance between the two extremes of self-denial, unquestioning imitation, and surrender and hatred, irrational rejection, and execration. (Source: Wikipedia)

Not exactly what I would call a radical. The United Nations adopted this theory and declared 2001 as the year of “Dialogue among Civilizations.”

Khatami pursued pro-western policies like denationalizing state industries and removing commodities subsidies. According to the World Bank, "after 24 years marked by internal post-revolutionary strife, international isolation, and deep economic volatility, Iran is slowly emerging from a long period of uncertainty and instability."

Recent US Interactions with Iran

In 2003, the Iranian government reached out to the US in an attempt to begin the process of settling some differences between the countries. Included was an offer to disarm Hezbollah and turn it into a political organization, and assist the US in stabilizing Iraq.

So what did the US do during this period? If ever there was an opportunity to support a reformer in Iran, to help Khatami succeed in the face of obstacles, this was it. Instead, George W. Bush refused the offer, and labeled Iran (and Iraq and North Korea) the “Axis of Evil.” We continued to isolate them economically and politically.

At the same time, Khatami’s “policies of reform led to repeated clashes with the hard-line and conservative Islamists in the Iranian government, who control powerful governmental organizations like the Guardian Council, whose members are appointed by the Supreme Leader .” Ultimately, Khatami was unsuccessful in pushing his major reforms past the government of the Ayatollah.

That the US hard line in the face of Khatami’s olive branch weakened his position in Iran is clear. Conversely, it is possible that positive US engagement could have ultimately given him the political capital to succeed with his other reforms.

The rise of Ahmadinejad

After two terms in office, Khatami wasn’t elligible to run for a third term. At the same time, the “Council of Guardians” – controlled by the Ayatolla – disqualified almost all reformist candidates. Between the general population’s frustration at the lack of reform progress and the absence of any credible reformist candidates, the conservative party was elected and Ahmadinejad came to power.

Painted Into A Corner

So here we are. Iran is a country of people weary of Islamic extremism, but which is controlled by a radical Islamist government which supports Hesbollah and is trying to acquire nuclear weapons.

Let’s face it, the two traditional US policies in these situations – economic isolationism and military intervention - have utterly failed.

Our history with economic blockades and isolation is extensive and unsuccessful. For example, Cuba has been under US economic embargo for over 50 years now. Fidel Castro has outlasted 8 US presidents and his brother has now taken the reigns of power. The only people who have suffered are the Cubans .

Is it time to invade Iran? Recent history shows that not only is this foolhardy (we can’t even control Iraq after 7 years), it would not be possible without a MASSIVE mobilization and draft.

Is it time to bomb Iran? Tactically that’s possible and would likely be an effective way to temporarily halt their nuclear ambitions. But it would likely lead to further radicalization of the Iranian population at a time when they are hungry for moderation. And it would also likely lead to other consequences: Overt Iranian support of terrorist groups opposing the US and galvanization of OPEC nations in their quest to extort extreme prices from the world oil market that they control.

So it seems that the US has created a monster and we have no realistic policies to successfully combat it.

A New Way Forward

There is a better way, and it applies equally to Iran, Cuba and other nations. Surprisingly, Nixon showed how when he opened up the doors to economic cooperation with China. Thirty years later, China is a booming capitalistic society with much broader individual freedoms and opportunities as a result. They still have their issues, but they are unquestioningly moving in the right direction.

It’s very simple. If a country has a poor, uneducated, desperate population, it’s both easy to control them and foster extremism. Look at the Palestinian territories. Do you think they are fundamentally crazy enough to want to blow themselves up in suicide missions? No. They are poor, their families are impoverished, and they are desperate. While their solution is the wrong one, it is perhaps a foreseeable outcome.

Conversely, economic growth is the single most important step towards individual liberties. It is fairly straightforward for a government to oppress an uneducated, poor middle class. However, once a country achieves prosperity and a large, educated middle class, it is virtually impossible to effectively suppress individual and political freedoms long term.

So the United States should engage politically and economically with Iran. We should have open diplomatic relations, we should be willing to sit down without arrogance and pre-conditions, and begin the process of dialogue. We should find common ground where we both benefit. We should open economic ties and encourage the growth of the Iranian economy. We should pursue policies that benefit the moderates within the country. And we should work to tie this progress to restricting Iran’s nuclear expansion.

Not only is this a viable path forward. It is the ONLY path forward with a probable successful outcome.

“I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him back safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.”

It was a preposterous challenge, and the costs would be enormous.  But Kennedy insisted, and the nation responded.  On July 20, 1969, the dream was fulfilled when Apollo 11 landed on the moon.  The ancillary benefits were huge and far reaching.  Here’s a list of 79 of them.

Fifty years later, no president has come close to harnessing the energy, determination, and spirit of the American people to achieve a great and unobtainable goal like the race to the moon. 

But now is the time.

The fact of the matter is, this nation, this continent, this planet is facing serious environmental change , that will have major economic, political, and human wellbeing consequences.  Of that there is no longer any serious doubt or debate.  I can think of no single issue with greater importance to human welfare that the United States should take a leadership position on.  To Kennedy, I say:

“This nation should reduce its per capita production of climate changing emissions from the highest in the industrialized world to the lowest in the industrialized world by 2020.”

I cannot think of a more difficult, more inspiring, or more important challenge for the world today.  I can already hear the critics starting to murmur:

“It will be disastrous to our economy.”

“It will make us uncompetitive.”

“It will raise the costs for the American consumer.”

I completely disagree.  Just like the space race spawned hundreds of industries and thousands of new technologies that have fueled our economy for five decades, this enormous challenge will do the same.  Is it possible to create technologies that reduce emissions and reduce costs?  Of course it is.  And THIS will be an enormously valuable and exportable product. The companies that sieze this challenge will be providing industrialized goods and technological solutions to the rest of the world for another 50 years. 

And it couldn’t come at a better time.  Despite decades of lax regulation, the US trade deficit has reached unprecedented heights.  It’s time to change this while doing the right thing for the planet.  Challeng the American people.  They will respond.

Machiavelli would be proud. Despite recurrently using the spread of democracy across the middle east as a justification for the Iraq war, the US continues to support dictators, tyrants, and coup-leaders worldwide.  Let's have a brief history lesson.  And I'm not talking about Eisenhower era support of Batista.  I'm talking about much more recent history.

Remember the failed coup attempt to overthrow the leftist, though legitimately elected, president of Venezuela Hugo Chavez in 2002?  The United States quickly came out in support of the coup leaders, but quickly back peddled when Chavez regained control after less than two days. 

Or how about Pakistan today.  Purvez Musharraf took power in a military coup in 1999, ousting democratically elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, and suspending the constitution twice to maintain power, most recently in November 2007.  He has jailed dissidents, jailed a supreme court justice, and generally behaved as a military dictator.  As for the argument he is a strong ally in the war on terror, he only reluctantly agreed to oppose the Taliban under direct threat from the United States.  Additionally, scientists in his country provided materials and training for building a nuclear weapon to Libya.

The United States supported the Shah of Iran (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi), the last Shah of 2500 years of continuous monarchy rule.  According to Madeleine Albright, “In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh… it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.” While the Shah did succeed in modernizing his country and improving the rights of women, he also ousted and arrested political dissidents, which ultimately lead to popular unrest and his overthrow. Which brings us to Iraq….

Once the Shah was overthrown and the fundamentalists took control of the country, the US chose a very strange bed fellow to support in the middle east: Saddam Hussein .  Saddam was another brutal dictator who came to power 1979.  During the Iran-Iraq war, the US provided military and economic aid to Saddam.  Importantly, during this war, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran.  Additionally, he used chemical weapons in a genocidal campaign against Iraqi Kurds.  Not exactly a role model for a US ally. Of course, relations soured when Saddam attacked and crippled a US warship.

Finally, in a quest to secure a steady supply of oil from the middle east, the US has formally supported the oppressive and corrupt Saudi family since the 1940s.  Despite the fact that it’s a monarchy, that women have little to no rights, that dissent is suppressed, that 15 of 19 hijackers in the 9/11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia, that there have been two major worldwide oil price shocks, the US still finds the Saudi family good friends.  It’s really astonishing. 

The list goes on.

On the one hand, you could argue that this is simply Machiavelli in action.  The ends justify the means.  The US secures outcomes in its national interest, but has to stomach relations with a few unsavory people.  However, in almost all cases, US support of corrupt regimes has ended in disastrous consequences for our own national self interest.  Support the corrupt regime of Batista got us exasperated Cubans and 50 years of Castro .  Support of the corrupt Shah got us a hostage crisis and 30 years of an extremist government openly developing nuclear weapons.  Support of Iraq got us two wars in 20 years.  Support Saudi Arabia got us 2 oil shocks and the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

It’s time to take a different approach to foreign policy.  Instead of supporting whichever dictator suits our interests at any given moment, instead of propping up corrupt regimes, let’s have a more principled approach. 

Let’s stop meddling in the internal affairs of other countries.  It’s a hard habit to break, but it’s time we did.

Let’s encourage economic development around the globe.  Ultimately, economic growth leads to a middle class, which leads to less extremism, which leads to more political freedoms.

Let’s stop supporting corrupt regimes and dictators because they can help our interests in the short term.  That just leads to internal resentment and ultimately radicals overthrowing the government anyway.

Finally, let’s tie economic cooperation to human rights records.

There are a startling 46 million abortions worldwide every year.  Over a lifetime, that totals about 1 abortion for every woman on the planet. I don't care if you're pro-life or pro-choice, these numbers are sobering.  And let's get real for a minute.  Whether there are laws prohibiting abortion or not, there are going to be abortions. About 20 million women each year obtain abortions in countries where the practice is either illegal or restricted (source).  Abortion is our reality.

I can't really debate whether abortions should be legal under the "do the right thing" lens.  That there are strong arguments both ways is not the point. But what's clear - regardless of your perspective - is that an abortion is a pretty horrific experience.  The problem with the abortion debate is that it is about beliefs. You believe life begins at inception, or you believe life begins at some later point - often defined as the point of viability of the fetus.  And beliefs, by definition, are not provable. Depending on where you come out on this belief, you will argue that abortions are ethical or not.   

Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, what is generally not debated is that having an abortion is a horrible experience.  In an ideal world, there would be no abortions.  So what we can examine under this lens is that we should work together to reduce the need for abortions.  

What can we do?  The US government, pro-life groups, pro-choice groups and anti-aids groups should band together in a (somewhat uncomfortable) alliance and focus their resources on the following areas.

Sex education: Get real.  Teenagers and young adults have sex.  From a biological perspective, they are built to be reproducing by the time they hit their teens.  And the reason teenagers hate you?  Biological.  It's time for them to become independent contributors to the tribe, break away from the family, and start their own.  Now, we've evolved societally a lot since the last ice age, and thankfully our kids don't need to start hunting saber-tooth tigers at age 13 anymore.  Let me tell you from personal experience, the basic biological drives are still there.  In a MAJOR way.  As a 16 year old boy, I spent an amazing amount of time chasing girls and trying to get laid.  I was not in any way unique.   Have you ever read Romeo and Juliet?  This has been going on for the history of mankind.  There is NOTHING you can do to stop it.  That's not going to change.  According to a Rutgers article :

"Just over half of teenage girls have experienced first sexual intercourse by age 17. [5]  Teenage girls are sexually active for seven or eight years on average before marriage. Indeed, premarital sex has become something of a misnomer. Sex is increasingly detached from the promise or expectation of marriage."

Another study finds that about 7% of men and 20% of women are virgins when they marry. 

What we can change is the consequences.  And that starts with sex education.  You need to educate kids at a young age - starting at about 12 - about sex, their urges, the process and the disastrous CONSEQUENCES of unprotected sex. We need to have real, frank conversations about this.  And it doesn't start and end with a single day in a 7th grade health class (as it did with me).  This needs to be an ongoing, re-inforced message delivered over and over by schools, parents, public service announcements, etc, etc, etc.  It's about building a culture of awareness that if you're going to have sex, you BETTER have protected sex.

Distribution of free birth control:  The thing about sex is that it's a completely natural and beautiful part of life.  And it's even more beautiful if this act doesn't result in an unwanted pregnancy.  It's so unbelievably simple.  Wear a condom.  This simple act would reduce by 99% the number of abortions annually.  The pro-life groups should be handing our condoms on the streets if they really want to do something about abortions.

This is where it gets really, really strange.  Many (most?) of the opponents of abortion rights are also the opponents of sex education and the distribution of free contraceptives.  That, in my opinion, is stunningly hypocritical and stupid.  Let's focus on the goals and the results.  Over a lifetime, that's on average 1 abortion for every woman in the world.  HORRIFIC!  START HANDING OUT CONDOMS TODAY!!!!!

So look, should abortions be legal?  Illegal?  It doesn't matter, because it won't dramatically change the number of abortions performed worldwide.  Let's get real about the fact that young adults have sex, most abortions are from young adults, and that there are things we can do about it TODAY. 

DEBATE 

That is, if you believe in that sort of thing. For those Hindus, he's not going to be reincarnated as a higher being.  For those Buddhists, he's nowhere near nirvana, let's put it that way. 

Why do I say this?  I cannot think of a president who has so consistently come down on the wrong side of morality. Just a few examples:

-Iraq:  Bush invaded Iraq without cause , made horrible decisions that resulted in the chaos we have today. Being incapable of admitting mistake, he clings to the righteousness of his decision in the face of 66% voter disapproval.  There is only one president in history with lower approval ratings - Nixon - and he was only at 67%.  Specifically, over 3800 US soldiers have died, a startling 80,000 iraqi civilians have died "violent deaths", and a mind boggling 655,000 total iraqi deaths are attributed to the war.  The cost so far has been $458,000,000,000 and this year he is asking for $190,000,000,000 , the highest level yet. "The end of major combat operations."  Indeed. 

-environment: To give you a sense of how Bush thinks of environment issues, he appointed Steven Griles, a lobbyist for the mining, oil and gas industries, as deputy secretary of the interior department.  Talk about a fox in the hen house!  He has steadfastly opposed mileage improvements. Has supported drilling in Alaska. He has not made the major investments needed in alternative energy. He has refused to sign the Kyoto accord (see my article on global warming .  About the only good thing he's done is support nuclear energy (which has the potential to significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions). 

-AIDS and reproduction policies:  Supporting the radical religious right, the Bush administration focused international AIDS prevention resources and funds on ineffectual abstinence programs and opposed education on the use of condoms.  According to the New York Times , "President Bush's decision to stop the funds for any overseas family-planning group that mentions abortion has also effectively stopped condom provision to 16 countries and reduced it to 13 others, including some with the world's highest rates of AIDS infection."  By following this ineffectual and ideologically driven policy, this administration has forgone the investments needed to reduce AIDS transmission and is indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands if not millions of additional AIDS related deaths in Africa.

His latest morally bankrupt move, Bush vetoed a plan to expanded health care coverage to 4 million additional  poor, uninsured children. The bill enjoyed wide, bipartisan support in congress. It would cover uninsured children whose parents cannot afford coverage. The cost is $35 billion over 5 years.  See my article on health care reform for why this is a moral imperative.

I mean, really. We spent $458 billion on an unjustified war that has made us less safe, and we can't afford health care for our children? 

There has never been a president more interested (and dare I say evil?) in serving a few personal relationships to the detriment of an entire nation and world.

Yes, Bush is going to hell. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars. Go directly to hell.

It occurs to me as I'm writing about US domestic policies that to this point I'm coming off pretty liberal-democrat.  Well, in some cases that's true, but in others, it's not.  I'm a strong supporter of capitalism who recognizes that there are real and significant areas where this system either fails or doesn't provide any solution.  In these situations, I think it's entirely appropriate for the government to step in.

I do believe the government has a strong role to play in individual welfare, for example 

• Providing equal opportunity to individuals through a high quality education and protection from discrimination.
• Providing universal access to quality healthcare . 
• Ensuring that those who are truly incapable of taking care of themselves are cared for.

On the other hand, I don't think it's the role of the government to

• Provide unconditional welfare or support to those who are able bodied
• Pitt the working class against businesses 
• Punish those who have seized their opportunities and done well for themselves through unreasonably high taxes  

In my view, this is where individual responsibilty kicks in.  And that's where the democratic party often get it wrong.  Once a society has provided an individual access to opportunity - through education, a fair legal system, etc - it is up to that individual to make the most of it.  If the individual seizes the opportunity, society benefits as does the individual.  If the individual doesn't seize the opportunity... well, we need uneducated workers too.  It's just that, statistically speaking, their wages are going to be far lower than a college graduate.  Don't want to work?  Too bad.  Neither do I.

Our government, particularly under democratic party leadership, has spent decades trying to establish a system where individuals were no longer accountable for their actions.  Don't have a job?  Don't worry, the government will provide for you.  The problem is, by destroying individual responsibility and de-linking individual performance from individual reward, you undermine societal and individual productivity.  That's why communism doesn't work.  Every communist state except North Korea (impoverished) and Cuba (impoverished) has failed.  China and Vietnam are no longer communist.  They are capitalist with a totalitarian political system.  The reason they failed was the destruction of individual incentives and individual responsibility.  Work hard on the farm today?  Great, here's your 20 ruppies.  Didn't work so hard today?  Great, here's your 20 ruppies.  Time after time we have seen this system fail. 

Let's dissect a couple social issues that I think can be significantly clarified.   

Take the role of society in supporting unwed mothers, a favorite beneficiary of the traditional liberal establishment.  For too many years the societal answer was to put them on welfare and support the family.  This had the perverse effect of creating a cycle of welfare and decaying morals among those we were trying to help.  Here is just one example of how this could play out:

• Unfortunate woman got pregnant out of wedlock.
• If the father is around, the mother gets no child support or medical coverage for her children if she marries him.  So she stays unwed.  The father, if he's around, feels a reduced sense of responsibility.
• If the father isn't around, the mother really has almost no choice but to go on welfare, but is forced into living in slums/impoverished neighborhoods because of the low level of support.
• The children grow up without a strong father figure, in a poor neighborhood, never knowing anyone in the family that works, and therefore lacking the strong role model that will help them get educated, break the cycle and get out of poverty.  They also grow up with a sense that the government owes them something.
• The children repeat the cycle when they grow up.

There is a better way.  First, everyone should be guaranteed healthcare.  Second, if the family income is low, the government should pay for the child care costs.  Third, the mother gets neither if she doesn't work. 

Let's also clarify that this doesn't mean there is no role for the government for those truly in need.  People with physical and mental disabilities, for example, should never be left behind.  Some of them have families to support them, others don't, but we should never let these people suffer for something they cannot control. 

Look, the Democrats did an amazing job over the past 100 years:

• Civil rights: check
• Women's rights: check
• Get out of Vietnam: check
• Social safety net: check

But I think they are somewhat rudderless and without a major "cause" that can galvinize the country like these major societal issues.  They should check out my articles on Healthcare, Education, Immigration and Global Warming for issues that can bring the country together.

Barack Obama has his work cut out for him, and he would be wise to heed this creed.  

It seems you can't swing a stick without hitting a global warming activist these days.  Now, when I first started reading about this phenomenon, I was pretty skeptical.  After all, it was only in the 1970s that scientists were warning of another ice age.  So I read a book called "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg.  Bjorn is a mathematician and he digs into the available environmental data and starts to evaluate much of the published environmental literature.  He finds that a significant amount of the public rhetoric voiced by the environmental movement isn't so well documented.  He then starts to look at the trends in air pollution, contaminants, mortality rates, etc.  What he finds is that on most environmental metrics, we're much better off now than in the past.  So, I figured, here is a real conservative thinker and I'll bet he's going to try to disprove global warming.

He didn't.  

The fact is, there is almost no scientific disagreement that global warming is real.  And there hasn't been much disagreement in years. But it has only been in the past 2 years that global warming has really captured the attention and support of the broader public.  

I mean, if there is a single issue that has more far reaching and (potentially) catastrophic consequences, I'd like to hear it.  There is considerable debate on exactly how this will play out, how long it will take, and exactly who will benefit and who will lose.  But what is clear is that there will be massive, global economic and geographic dislocation. Millions of people and families will have to leave the homes their ancestors have lived in for thousands of years due to drought, flooding or overheating (depending on where you live). There will be millions of lives lost.   And frankly, the consequences could be much worse.  We just don't exactly know yet.

Jared Diamond is brilliant.  In "Collapse" he recounts how on Easter Island, the population depended on trees to build boats for fishing, prevent soil erosion, and reduce the surface wind, all of which was necessary to feed and sustain their society.  Now, the Easter Islanders proceeded to cut down every single tree on the island in order to transport giant stone heads to their respective villages.  And then their society collapsed and most of them died.  One of his students asked him, "what do you think the islanders were thinking when they cut down the last tree?"

Indeed.

I'd like to know what the hell the United States is thinking right now by refusing to sign the Kyoto accord or refusing to take decisive action to save its citizens (not to mention the citizens of the PLANET) from this impending catastrophe.  Even China has better fuel efficiency of their cars than we do.  In fact, we've been tinkering in the middle east for decades to try to secure even more oil!  It's like mass suicide, but nobody cares.  I just don't get it at all.

I mean, what's your senator thinking?  "Well, I've read the reports and our grand children are going to be really, really screwed.  But GM has donated an awful lot to my campaign, so I'll oppose any sort of reasonable measures to reduce carbon emissions and head off this disaster.  Yep, that seems pretty reasonable."

OK, enough ranting.  Let's talk about what we can do.  There is no silver bullet.  It's going to be a lot of simultaneous measures.

• Hybrid cars:  Have you driven a hybrid?  They're awesome.  You can get over 50 miles per gallon.  And they are a pleasure to drive.  The technology is there.  And it will only get better.  I mean, what's the downside? Let's make a wholesale shift immediately.  Not in 20 years, but in the next 5 or so years, we should have 95% of all cars produced be hybrid.  It's not going to be easy, but in 5 years (WWII) we went from being a peaceful nation to a highly industrialized war machine fighting on two major fronts halfway around the world. Longer term, fuel cells seem to be the consensus pick, but they are a little further off.  And electric is a good alternative to consider.  So let's pass a law tomorrow to the effect.  The auto makers will figure it out.
• Wind / Solar / Hydro: these are supplementary sources of power.  Their economics are quickly and dramatically improving and are becoming competitive with traditional sources.  The trouble is, if you have a couple cloudy days, you're out of luck.  These technologies can significantly reduce our carbon reliance, but they will never be a full replacement.  You need something more reliable.  To think that we spend a few billion each year on R&D in this area while we spend over hundreds of billions annually support a war in the middle east to secure our oil supply is patently absurd.  Let's spend $50 billion per year for a few years and see where that gets us.  A heck of a lot further than we've gotten in Iraq, that's for sure.
• Nuclear power: I'm a nuclear engineer by training, so I speak with some authority on this subject.  Nuclear power is the most environmentally friendly source of energy of the main "base load" alternatives.  It's incredibly safe.  It has no carbon footprint.  And the waste issue is completely solvable.  On that topic, we need a combination of reprocessing (where a lot of the longer lived radioisotopes are recycled) and a long term storage facility.  This is an area that the private utilities are drying to fund.  It's just that the regulatory situation is such that if they spend $3-5 billion building one of these plants, there is still a risk that environmentalists will try to tie up the startup of the plant in the courts for years, driving them into bankruptcy.  So, basically, the government doesn't need to fund these plants.  But it does need to provide the utilities with a guarantee that if the plants are built according to the proper safety regulations and oversight, they will be allowed to operate.
• Fusion power:  Fusion is said to be "30 years from commercialization and it always will be."  We'll get it right one day.  Just don't hold your breath.

So how do we start?  I mean, it's only the fate of the world and the survival of humanity that rests in the balance. OK, maybe I'm being a little overly dramatic.  But, really, what did were they thinking when they cut down that tree?

First, we need to implement these measures on a mass scale in the United States.  And quickly.  For a country of our wealth, we could make massive improvements in the coming decade.  At the same time, we're going to develop a leading position in the technology behind these solutions that we can export internationally.  That's good for us and our businesses. 

But we can't just do this unilaterally. China and India, with over 2 billion people between them, will eventually dwarf the carbon footprint of the US.  It is said that China builds a coal power plant every week.  So the US needs to stop spending its political and economic capital on unpopular wars and start showing REAL global leadership and influencing the rest of the world to take the same measures. 

There is one issue here.  US industry benefited dramatically over the last 100 years from lax environmental regulation.  It's not exactly fair to deny developing economies such rapid growth by imposing hugely costly regulations on them.  There needs to be some fair incentive system that allows them to grow quickly while profiting from implementing environmental controls.  One model is the trading of pollution credits.  There are others.  All should be considered.

Look, I'm a pragmatist. And you should be too.  There should be no ivory towers in this debate.  We're not all going to stop driving cars.  We're not going back to caves.  Let's get over that right now.  But what we can do is dramatically reduce our energy consumption and emissions.  The technology is here.  We CAN do it now.  It's a choice, but one we have to take now.  If we fail to act, over the next 20-30-40 years, we'll probably be OK.  But 50-100 years down the road, our grandchildren are going to be saying, "what do you think they were thinking when they voted down the law requiring higher gas mileage for automobiles?  Maybe the Easter Islanders just didn't know, but our grandparents did."