Cool!! Perhaps now the climate change skeptics will lose their financial argument that taking action on climate change will cost money and harm the economy, unlike the oil war in Iraq. Actually, it was a known silly argument before. However, it's always good to have a nice recent study to point to that says so clearly and unambiguously.

I wonder if there is some sort of investment that I can take on in order to help sway the vote? The idea being that if people start purchasing renewable stocks, it can help influence the power, politicians, and politics. I have a renewable index fund. Anyone know if this might help? Does anybody have any other similar strategy?

Beware the rural revitalization myth! The US is using corn ethanol - it costs more to produce, produces more pollution to produce, and has raised corn prices for everyone else. These ventures are often highly privatized, and usually only benefit large agribusiness and further erodes sustainability. Switch to sugar cane, and you might have a case...

Actually dot, that article doesn't mention ethanol or biodiesel. They talk about wind mostly, and mention biomass. Ethanol has problems everywhere it's being used. It puts food in competition with fuel in every case, fuel in competition with habitat, as in Brazil, and many other issues. Even sugar cane and switch grass don't really solve the issue, though switch grass comes close.

Back on topic though, wind, solar, and other forms of electricity generation that spread the energy source out over a wider area do benefit rural populations. They also address another issue that those of us in the Northeastern U.S. should be aware of. The issue is that with large scale power sources concentrated in a few locations, the failure of one source, or even one switching station can take out huge areas of the grid. Our most recent blackout was caused by one such problem near the Niagara hydro plant.