>I agree on the insulation. However, that costs money. There are many people living in households that can't afford to insulate.

It costs once. Throwing energy away costs every day.

It's more the matter of ownership - I had absolutely no interest to invest in insulation in places that I rented, simply because I can't take it with me. And the owner wants to keep the costs down, so he insulates only as much as the building code forces him to. So it's his insulation and my energy bill - he doesn't care about my bill, and I can't influence his insulation. And when leasing, I have no idea how well it's insulated, not until I see my electricity bill. By that time, I've already signed the lease and got locked in for a year.

If I own the place, then it's a completely different matter.

>Regarding jets, carbon dioxide isn't the only concern. Nitrous oxides and their effect on ozone is a serious concern. The fact is, no one is going to take a wind or solar powered boat across the Atlantic or Pacific oceans. They are going to fly on a jet.

I'm curious why they don't reintroduce dirigibles. I've seen them flying here and there, but more as a ride than as a transport. And they surely have helium enough - just look at how many balloons they pump at every grocery. For short to medium distances, a dirigible may be more efficient than railroad (specially with its ability to go where train can't :), specially with today's meteorogical data - they could pick the height with tail wind.

Don't know what the speed would be, but it would surely beat driving to the airport, sitting there for more than an hour, then waiting for luggage and driving from the airport at the destination.