Our means of engagement and influence over our government are clear – we can lobby, work on campaigns, vote, etc. But how do we effectively exercise influence over Duke energy? Rogers clearly doesn’t care about our generation’s future. Indeed, in a rational sense, he shouldn’t – his job is maximizing current profits for shareholders. Boycotting Duke energy doesn’t seem feasible, and numerous sit-ins and other direct actions don’t seem to have changed any corporate policies.

So what’s next? Do we have to make stopping global warming profitable for the dirty energy industry that has caused it? I suppose that’s what ACES in its present form is trying to do. Frankly, I’d live with the massive handouts to dirty industry over the next 20 years, if only it came with a scientifically based reduction target and equally massive investment in clean energy research, development and deployment and in green jobs programs and efficiency.

Is there a way to reconcile all of this? It seems like enough value should be created with a real permit system that it could be allocated to both satisfy corporations (for a decade or two), invest in the technologies we need to maintain a good economy based on clean energy, and fund all of the low-cost efficiency measures that can employ millions.

Maybe the next step is for us to unseat the members of congress who’ve let Duke (etc.) run all over them…