Go ask the man on the street, the typical oumbama voter to contribute money to stop climate change and see what happens.

energy conservation is just one of the "wedges" that will be needed in order to reach sustainable low carbon emissions soon in the future. While some of us conserve, others will waste if the price of the commodity drops due to the conservation. There is 400 years worth of coal in the ground and some entities owning that resource seem bound and determined to see it all be utilized (burned and released to the atmosphere). As long as the environmental externalities of mountaintop removal mining, biodiversity loss, and ocean health diminishment are "free" to those doing the carbon pollution, we don't stand a chance. The truth that Hansen has told us about where we need to go in terms of carbon levels, remains there as the best scientific guide. It's the political/emotional aversion to change of the type instigated by a government, which we have run up against. Never mind the changes happening externally which continue to accelerate. The only ones who are likely to get this concept fiscally are the insurance companies.

That said, I agree that abandoning the term "anthropogenic global warming" in favor of the bland, cause-indeterminate term of "climate change" was merely adding to the "fog" of plausible deniability being whipped up by the manufacturers of doubt with a vested interest in the status quo.

One huge reason more renewable energy hasn't caught on in the US is that centralized corporate producers of grid energy (the vested status quo) haven't figured out how to capitalize on it all themselves. Decentralized renewable energy at the local scale of households and communities is a completely different empowerment, without the big transmission losses of the regional/national grid power lines.

Running away from the propaganda of anti-science crowd is a fool's errand.

I believe there is an "Energy Renaissance" in the making - It's just not in the USA! In fact, it is in some of the major oil producing countries, such as the KSA and the UAE, that are investing heavily in renewable energy solutions, including mostly solar CSP and PV system farms. These Oil Companies are smartly becomming "ENERGY COMPANIES", with a focus on the a future world with depleating fossile fuel resources. Countries in Europe, including Germany and the UK, are years ahead of the US in passing energy conservation laws and offering their citizens incentives like feed-in tarrifs to curb energy consumption within their borders. All of this is happening while the US Congress has a "fiddle while Rome Burns" attitude towards passing any real legislation toward a better America with a structured energy program. The Global Fossile Fuel Magnates have successfully inviscerated the science of Climate Change, dividing the American Public into approximately two opposing groups. I do agree that a change in the retoric and a greater emphasis on improving the efficiencies of energy use in building development,transportation, and industry might help the US to get off of the merry-go-round of political dissension over "Global Warming".

We can't stop talking about Climate Change

While I agree there are consensus-attainable strategies to make progress on climate change in many sectors, I do not believe this is an argument for abandoning the climate change debate. First, I think it is a mistake to think that vehicle efficiency, appliance standards, and other energy efficiency standards are "consensus" issues - there is considerable opposition to every one of these solutions, from organizations that hold significant sway in washington (National Association of Manufacturers, Chamber of Commerce, etc...). Second - the scale of change we need to achieve means that we will have to pursue both popular and unpopular approaches to climate change, including some that are relatively low-cost but do not have an immediate, measurable ROI, or ones that are high-cost but have a strong long-term ROI. To build the appetite for these long-term investments in our prosperity, it is important to believe in at least the RISK of climate change, and to factor this into everyone's cost/benefit equation.

Finally, the debate on climate change (like debates on evolution, phrenology, Earth revolves around sun, etc...) are fundamental debates on science - if the naysayers are allowed to shout down a scientific consensus around the cause and effects of climate change, it undermines the value of science in driving intelligent policy decisions - this is a risk that is almost as great as the one we face from climate change.

Wise old salesman once told me---Nobody buys anything in an argument. We do so much of that here in America...it's getting old...

Renewable energy needs to include the economic piece which many (environmentalists) have known about for years but have failed to grasp the importance of, with respect to ratepayers. Part of the argument needs to include investing opportunties across the board.

If ratepayers, especially, could partake more easily and more straightforward in energy investment opportunities I think the clean energy industry would see huge growth.

There have been minimal money making opportunities, which have been exploited by large corporations (many foreign) because of policies geared towards passive investing rules and business depreciation.

Also, territorial laws which favor utilities have mitigated renewable energy growth. Under existing rules utilities have little incentive to facilitate clean energy because it takes away from their bottom lines. The rules need to change.

Understand the thesis but think this is wrongheaded. One, why should we change tactics due to a propoganda campaign funded primarily by oil, gas, and coal interests? Their campaign has relied on misdirections and lies for decades. It's as if the science behind linking smoking to cancer didn't matter all that much and the anti-smoking lobby decided to forfeit on the facts and just get people to smoke less often. This is ridiculous defeatism. Second, we are indeed seeing amazing transformations in energy sources and new technologies. But, without incentives and government intervention to reroute this disrailed petro-based market failure, in line with what the science tells us we must do in order to preserve the climatic conditions that have allowed us to thrive as a species, this alternative technology and renewable energy transformation may happen too late. We have, according to the scientists whom have been most accurate in their projections over the years (i.e., Hansen), a good five years to globally peak emissions and begin a rapid descent.

I think the approach mentioned by the authors is appropriate in limited context, but should not become the default positioning.

The progress made to date on improved energy efficiency has in many ways been commendable, but I'm unclear where the continued impetus for GHG reduction will come without some sort of carbon price. As we've seen with gasoline demand curves and will soon see with our remarkable expanded supply of natural gas, consumers adapt to tolerable price levels and then the Jevon's effect takes over and demand quickly rises. Absolute GHG levels will also continue to rise. I'd suggest that much of our energy efficiency progress to date has been good, old fashioned capitalism doing what it does, and while that helps reduce emissions a different driver will be needed to get them to a level that will be sustainable.

Spin Doctor say " When you're argument is losing..........change tactics."

An interesting article. The fact is industry and commerce would not have taken this new path to sustainble properity (and it is still a minority activity) if the scientific community had not pressed the need to curb carbon emissions. There is also caution needed as the damage carbon emissions may already be irrversable, in which case we need industry to look at adaptations to lessen the impact of this damage.

Good luck with your market shift. Too little, too late. Global warming is a market failure on a scale unseen since we invented markets. I look forward to seeing the excuses when the fossil fuel bubble bursts.

Republicans and conservative business leaders fight "enabling public policies" tooth and nail. I enjoy happy talk as much as anyone, but in case you hadn't noticed, we just went through the hottest winter, spring, summer, year, and decade ever measured. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/31

July, 2012 was the hottest month the USA ever had since records have been kept. Biodiversity is in a global free-fall. The Arctic has just set new low ice volume and extent records. All this to say, your point is lost in the fact that things are getting much worse at a consistently accelerating rate. So I hope you will forgive me if I hold my applause for "the great energy renaissance."