Sorry, but as far as the atmosphere is concerned, "per capita" doesn't mean squat on emissions.

Same for energy consumption. Fact is, in the future China is going to be eating the most out of the carbon fuel trough, and burping the most back into the air, and it's going to be small consolation that the per-capita numbers of the most populous nation on Earth are going to be relatively low.

I like hydroelectric facilities, which once built, can theoretically work forever, although you could have a reasonable debate on whether they still have more impact on the environment than nuclear power plants. Thank God the U.S. and Canada built a fairly decent hydroelectric infrastructure before such dams were declared Unclean. Canada gets most of its electricity that way.

I fully agree that we need to get past burning carbons for fuel. Even if there were no CO2 issue at all, the geopolitical morass and limited resources would be a good reason. I've often said oil has far too many valuable uses to use as a fuel.

If I were running the show, I would be building nukes at least as fast as France did back in the 70s. At the same time, I'd be encouraging decentralized solar and wind systems. We will never be able to run a full-up technological civilization solely on wind and sun, but every watt you get off someone's roof panel, or out of someone's windmill, is a watt you don't have to make in a power plant. Over time, that will add up.

In places like the Southwest, where peak energy use is also peak sunshine time, it makes even more sense.

I have high hopes for the new printable panels.

Who knows? Maybe one of these fusion concepts will take off. But I ain't holding my breath for it.