James, to date, most predictions have been off, which has not helped. I do not argue the idea that we need to address climate change, or that man has made his contribution. That we both agree with. The question is, what’s the most effective policy to move it forward? Under a military driven model, I have provided multiple examples of successful technology development via the military spending model. The military, as the largest consumer of energy, has a mission to protect today, and into the future. They are obligated by their mission to develop this technology. Does not mean they do not collaborate with universities and private industry, just means that it’s a lot easier to create a large government funded source, without the fight between the aisles of Congress. In essence, we are saying the same thing, but for some reason you want Democrats and Republicans to agree on an alternative source of funding with a mission of fixing the climate. It will never happen as long as we have a two party system. While you are idealistic with your approach, and I would love to see it, there is no example you can provide that this model works. The WTO is a failure (Simply offshored deregulation exasperating the climate issue), the UN is a failure (Look at the world), War, Deforestation, Ravaging the Oceans. You have way too much faith in world leaders that would sell out the environment to gain a competitive advantage.