Dave and Toneila,

Agree and I am pushing for more manufacturing base in the midwest.  Historically manufacturing followed available energy.  New England water begot mills.  Pennsylvania coal begot foundries.  Texas oil begot refineries.  Each step led to manufacturing of goods based on what raw materials were produced.  Mills = food, cloth, lumber.  Foundries = metals, tools, building components.  Refineries = carbon compounds, plastics, portable energy.  All of these industries are now offshore with labor following them.

We need a new energy base of biofuels, wind and solar which will lead to ---- what?  Whatever it is will require labor and new plant construction.  The point is not to grow the economy so much, as to employ people to make things locally.  Lots of multiplication of the money when there is a good manufacturing base locally.  And I am convinced we need to be producing the energy locally to get that base back.

It doesn't matter if this isn't as much as currently provided by fossil fuels.  New England had a thriving economy based on water power 250 years ago using a fraction of the energy they use now.  It's the difference between making and buying that leads to a viable economy.  We only buy now and that has to change.

Relocalizing is great, but the people who have the guns (U.S., Britain, Israel) have already committed to the opposite view. There'll be a great war lasting for generations, and when it's over, they'll somehow end up on top.

I watch the western banking system (the real power), and so far they're staying with imperial plan. I suppose they realize if global capitalism dies, they die, too.

So the wealth needed to rebuild and relocalize our towns, cities and countryside is instead going into the vast military machine.

I feel like such a meaningless bystander in all this ...