I was making the point that people were advocating these drastic, largely poorly considered, VERY expensive solutions when there are existing, known solutions that will cost less. So I was contrasting the more dramatic solutions versus the more known solutions.

However, where will the money come from? Well, first off, the Occupation of Iraq really does need to end. No one wants us there and we aren't doing any good and the only thing we are accomplishing is providing recruiting material for al-Qaeda (who never USED to be in Iraq until we went there), putting our soldier's lives on the line for nothing, and providing huge profits for Halliburton and Bechtel. So, yes, money can come from ending the IRaq occupation. How? I refer you to Bill Richardson's thoughts on that since they seem to make the most sense and he has some of the best foreign policy experience of any of the candidates, including dealing with tough diplomatic situations.

Now, that aside, another point I always make is that the best solutions are ones that have benefits other than just dealing with global warming. Alternative energy means LOCAL energy solutions which means MORE AMERICAN JOBS, which means a stronger economy...which will obviously help everyone and probably will pay for itself...for real, not like the Iraq invasion was supposed to pay for itself.

Reforestation also has side benefits in terms of preservation of water resources and soil hence preserves agriculture. It can even help revitalize agriculture in marginal areas, which ALSO helps the economy.

These two things CREATE JOBS and/or HELP FARMERS. They boost the economy in the long term.

Preserving wetlands often helps prevent flooding of inhabited areas, which CERTAINLY saves money in terms of disaster relief that won't have to be spent.

Preserving forests is the one that doesn't create anything new, but it saves money in that it prevents the problems that happen with deforestation, which causes soil decline, droughts and flooding (Bangladesh is an example of this).

Some of this applies more to foreign nations than to the US, but our foreign aid would be MORE effective if we took all these things into account. So I am advocating things that create jobs, help the economy, save money (preventing floods, for example) or are better uses of money already being spent.