Is it the case therefore that once some people's brains have been infected with global warming (sorry climate change) propaganda they find it impossible to think for themselves and continue with the mantra… boy some people really are thick.

Educate yourselves – dummies.

1 The planet is not warming any more

2 We were never the cause for the hlaf degree rise in the last 100 years

3 The planet has been significantly warming than it is now… we survived.

4 CO2 – representing 0.54% of the atmosphere is GOOD – it's what makes us all grow.

Are all of the other REAL and tangible problems solved already? Problems like:

-city gangs

-illegal immigration

-our pathetic education system

-our out of control government/politicians that spend money like it was water and print more if they need it

-crime

-increasing numbers of children being born into households without a father present

-neighborhood littering and pollution (see we actually think its good to clean up the environment – just START IN YOUR OWN BACK YARD FIRST)

-homeless

-drunk driving murders

-out of control outsourcing of jobs to other nations and to illegals under the guise of "they're doing the work that Americans dont want to do"… BULLSHIT. And people wonder where the tax revenue has gone???? What Einsteins are we dealing with here?

-out of control traffic congestion

-an aging infrastructure that needs repair, replacement and new development to support growing cities

-a relatively non-existent rail transportation system that needs a serious overhaul and development

The list can go on and on. The fact is, these are real and present problems with the United States and possibly other nations too. Climate change is ALWAYS going to be there because its ALWAYS changing. When people start discussing the precise problems this planet has seen over the entire 4+ billion years of its existence, WITH CONFIDENCE in their data, then maybe people will believe you.

Stop being irresponsible in ignoring the issues that are real and tangible!

Ted-I disagree that a tax is a non-starter. In fact, I think that an electorate which understands a revenue-neutral carbon tax–a tax rebated to them with a tax-shift approach–(already supported by the majority of leading scientists, economists and opinion leaders anyway)can be a political winner, especially when compared to the debacle that has become the Waxman-Markey/ cap and trade debate.

The bottom line is that a revenue-neutral carbon tax is superior to a cap and trade scheme on a number of levels (many of which are outlined here): not only does it avoid the creation of a complicated and convoluted "subprime carbon market," it also avoids the evasion and market manipulation inherent to cap and trade. Further, a carbon tax is more straightforward and transparent than cap and trade, incentivizes the creation of green technology, predictably reduces emissions AND returns the revenue to the people (especially attractive given these political and economic times.)

We're not in the first quarter of the game. We're in the fourth. Cap-and-trade is on the court; carbon tax is in the showers.

Cap-and-trade has made it because of the structure's ability to incorporate regional and industry interests into one system. That's the debate that Congress needs to pursue.

Also, your two-sentence summary of the European experience does a disservice to people who don't know much about the subject. As you probably know, it is neither so simple or clear-cut.

Ted Rose

http :www.twitter.com/carbonhound

David Blankenship
http://www.twitter.com/windbaron