I would have to disagree with that statement, I think that the most efficient government today would have a hard time replacing just Florida's infrastructure for $10 trillion.

You're right. The numbers probably don't add up exactly. Look how much has evaporated in the Iraq rebuilding. But to argue with the numbers misses the point. The point is that the government is eagerly willing to spend $10 trillion on chest-puffing exercises that amounted to nothing (okay you could argue it amounted to security, but I'm not going there); yet it complains that it would be too expensive to replace the infrastructure necessary to clean up our act. That equation doesn't add up for me. Hawken's is saying that if we reorient our priorities, the money will suddenly be very accessible. And as for the actual amount, we wouldn't have to replace every farm, hospital, roadway, etc. to make a dent in this problem. But we do need to commit to it with the same vigor we committed to the Cold War.

This is especially interesting in light of the recent announcement by the UK gov't (report written by senior gov't economist). My prediction: there will be new (even if barely measurable) industrial and govt interest in global warming. Suddenly we're talking about deferred financial costs and not "save the whales". Old men in 3 piece suits understand that language even if they care whit about the whales.