And Gore's 100% renewables goal is more realistic than most would assume at first. This post at The Oil Drum breaks it down: http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4316

Bravo, Jason. thanks for connecting the initiatives on climate change by Gore and Pickens with economic sustainability. I liked Iacocca's comments. He has an incisive way of telling it like it is with more than a dash of spice.

I agree with one of your main issues: It's vital to recognize the "crossover in substance" with Pickens' plan ("purely an economic initiative" and Gore's, a sustainability initiative."

It's not only vital to recognize it, but promote it. Systems analysis, or a holistic view, reveals that the two are not purely about one arena vs. another-- in your example, economic vs. ecological.

Seen as a whole a system, human activity is extremely wide-ranging. Most areas of human activity overlap with many other areas. Technology overlaps with social issues, and with ecological and economic issues in, for example, oil drilling and production. People must interact to succeed in these activities. Land use may come into play.

It's crucial to promote a systems view ("Think globally...") of seeing human activity. Virtually anything we do has an impact on others, other species and the ecology.

It's vital as well to push the media to understand how they contribute to the American public's ennui and hostility around global warming and climate issues. Conservative powerhouses like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh add to the noise, and it makes a kind of retardation ripple effect that dumbs down complicated issues and sustains backward, regressive thinking and policies. Do we need a Scopes Monkey Trial on global warming and sustainability to push this issue from the pits of the ridiculous to a sustainable level of sanity?

Sadly, the Bush-Cheney administration is a chief proponent of sleazy, self-centered economic activity that stands like a wall in the face of progress and sanity. Never since the Robber Baron era have oil companies prospered at the expense of the average person and the ecology.

For example, Exxon Mobil made the largest ever quarterly profit in the first quarter of 2008: $11 billion. From figures posted on their website, I calculated that out of their 2007 profits, they donated only .017 of 1 percent of their profits to charity. That's like a person who makes a "profit" (spending money after all expenses) of $2000 donating $34 to charity!

Can you imagine the impact of a gift of 10 percent, or $110 million to charity each quarter at their current profit rate? That could make a real difference.

Exxon Mobil heavily promotes its charity and donations to African wildlife causes and others on its website, www.exxonmobil.com.

To occupy so much webspace with such a farce of its miniscule gifts is almost fraudulent. This company is out to make as much money as possible while trampling over whomever and whatever it needs to. Exxon Mobil donates fractions of pennies only to look like a good corporate citizen--which it is not.

"I drink your milkshake. I drink it up." That's what these players are doing, in the words of Daniel Plainview, the protagonist played so well by Daniel Day Lewis in the film "There will be Blood."

Bush-Cheney epitomize and aggressively promote the regressive "Gimme, gimme! I'm getting mine Jack, so screw you" attitude that has literally retarded popular understanding of climate and ecological issues. These players have quite literally promoted ecological retardation in the general populace, out of their own self-centered, narrowly focused interests and desires.

These leaders and many of the corporations they support, with so little care for the needs of the many, "drink your milkshake."

They "drink it up" because they care only for themselves. They keep drinking it up, as long as we let them. We have to stop them with intelligence, compassion and driving action.

Keep blogging, promote sustainability and talk intelligently with whomever you know so we "won't get fooled again."

Oops, I erred above. And it's _not_ in Exxon's favor.

Exxon Mobil's profits were $40.6 billion for 2007, according to the Washington Post at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/01/AR2007020100714.html. It's charity gifts were totaled mere $173.8 million, or less than .0043 percent of its profits.

Yes, #173.8 million is a lot...but compared with their profits?

This is the equivalent of someone with spending money of $2000 giving less than $8.60 to charity. That's the cost of 3 fast food sandwiches in one year!

Give me a break! Exxon Mobil needs to give a break to "your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."

Where is the community responsibility? What kind of citizen acts this way?

And let's just stop refining oil, a top destroyer of the environment. Get into wind power. Anything but "business as usual." Please. For the sake of everybody.