This conversion from the existing paradigm to a 'cleaner', more sustainable energy source landscape can be a 'top-down' or 'bottom-up' process. I see effort in both approaches being made, but it is not reaching 'critical mass'. The structure of our economy, culture and vested interests trumps something insidious we cannot experience in a tactile way. How do we get past the intitial cost resistance without damaging the economy further today? Academically, it all makes perfect sense. In the business world, it's a slow - often profitless - process to contribute to reduction on carbon footprint, switch to currently more expensive fuel sources, instigate use of inefficient transportation networks, etc. Don't even get me started on the rail system in Sacramento!....As a knowledgeable developer and resident, my take is it's nearly useless. The State Capital of the 7th largest economy in the World can't get people to the airport from the Capital Building....enough said. I am an energy systems cost management and Efficiency Upgrade professional at the moment and truly support change to a sustainable transportation and energy consumption economy, but still find the halls of academia are filling the air with sound (another form of pollution), not results. Any great idea needs 'funding', and in a free capitalist country the application of capital needs to show some 'bang for the buck'. Thus far, we haven't been able to achieve that in California due to CEQA and various other impediments. We are legislating ourselves out of practical solutions - leaving only very cost-heavy, minimally potent, compromise driven attempts to accomplish a modicum of progress toward the crucial goals so eloquently supported by the research community. How do we ALL close the loop? That's my open question to anyone reading this. -Have a nice Day!