Thank you, Melissa. But not to rain on your parade too much, I feel that offering delusory hope may be as bad as a steady, demoralizing diet of gloom and disaster to your readers. My reasoning is this: the catastrophe we are now facing has been long in the making: it is embedded in the major premise of our global market economy, which is that "more is always better."

And this major premise is a direct consequence of (1) our total dependence on fossil fuels as a source of (apparently) unlimited net energy for "growth"--of population, affluence, and technological innovation; (2) the inherent logic of money, which is a zero-sum game based on arithmetic (1+1 always equals 2, which is better than 1)--which means that in a finite system (like the Earth), money always gravitates toward the top few; (3) the widespread assumption that nature is just a "resource" with no value whatsoever until it is converted into commodities for sale. The problem is quite simple: an infinitely expanding zero-sum economy on a finite, positive-sum biological support system (our living planet) leads inexorably to overshoot and collapse. And that time has come.

So what can and should be done? Collectively, "we" can do nothing but spend vast amounts of money to delay the inevitable. But individually, you and I--and your readers as well--can plan intelligently for the inevitable collapse of our global market economy by growing gardens, growing community, and growing awareness. So your best bet, as a journalist, is to leaven the horrific news with stories about permaculture (i.e. regenerative design) and other innovations that individuals and small groups are undertaking everywhere to unplug from the oil-and-money economy and relocalize food production, carbon sequestration, and commerce. Therein, alone, lies hope for the future.