I’m late to the energy debate here: I rely on solar energy to power my home, and in the SW’s mountains you can count on sunshine 350+ days of the year – even in Winter.

Agree with the other posters: Solar only makes sense if you can move it, or move to it. It’s the second option, moving to a sunnier clime, that I think we’ll see as the costs of PV materials drop.

Which may not be a bad thing. This works against Obama’s urbanization efforts, because it incentivizes migration away from the frozen Northern cities. Imagine the choice: you can stay in Minneapolis, shiver all winter, and talk, talk, talk about being “Green,” or you can pack up, buy land in Kingman, AZ and really live it.

One of my theories is, most of the people pitching sustainable living are debutants: they would not be able to hack the energy conservation and the occasional, selective appliance use that is required during cloudy spells, and they’re really just pining to be part of a government-sponsored crusade that jibes with a ‘feeling’ they have.

RE Whiskey’s thesis: Used to be women derived their power from rearing multiple successful children. The mother of a large Italian family with 12 kids was a hegemon to be reckoned with – especially once her children grew up enough to rally to her side outside the home. This hearth-power used to be the font of womens’ rule in the house, against the husband, and out about the town.

But now, it may be that today’s trend towards childlessness has eliminated females’ traditional process for attaining “power,” and they’re stuck trying to recover it poetically in other, non-familial bodies.

I’m with Mongoose – let’s get back to family. It’s the marrow of the Republic.