Global Warming - cap and trade or tax?

Good article again, Sam, you address an important issue that needs more attention! While I generally dislike taxes and subsidies, I do see advantages here. Also, as the shift takes place as envisaged, the whole system of taxes and subsidies could eventually fase itself out. The more and the longer the impact of such a combination of taxes and subsidies, the less attractive burning of fossil fuel becomes. What do you think? Will we live to see an end to such taxes and subsidies?

Sam: "...we should adopt a new motto, i.e. tax energy suppliers who pollute and give it to suppliers who don't."

Absolutely!

How is the EPA going to put a cap on termites? They emit methane, as do wetlands, how on earth is anyone going to put a cap on that?

"How is the EPA going to put a cap on termites? They emit methane, as do wetlands, how on earth is anyone going to put a cap on that? "

Why is it that the "right" has to resort to nonsense when they argue points? Can't you people EVER take a real stance on anything? Then again, when you allow yourselves to be deluded by fake scientists who're paid by the oil industry, and propogandists spewing utter lies 24/7, I guess you're destined to be awash in ignorance and foolishness.

Excellent article, Sam, thanks for explaining this!

Permits are just another money grab by the liberal govt to line their pockets. There is snow in Oklahoma and Arkansas this weekend(4/5/07) and yet you idiots still cry global warming? You are a bunch of pathetic losers with nothing better to do than scare people. In the 70's, you nut cases were arguing "Global Cooling" and now you are arguing, "Global Warming" and all the while, this is part of a large global weather pattern. CO2 is heavier than air, how in the hell can it be in the sky causing a massive heat wave that brings snow to Arkansas in the freaking Spring?!?!?!?!?!?

Wasn't there a conference on Global Warming that was canceled due to excessive snow and ice this year?

It would seem that the right, with it's insistance on denying global warming, is operating true to form. They were in denial that the war in Iraq was going badly, they were in denial that the congress they elected was raping our country, and they are still in denial that the president has sold out to corporate interests and has spent his whole six plus years bankrupting America for the benefit of corporate greed.

Global warming is a fraud, George said so and and he never lies...
Now let's pretend we're winning in Iraq and our president is not a fool.

Mitch, do you understand the difference between science and science fiction? From your post, obviously not. If the climate is warm, then the weather will not be FREAKING COLD!!!!!! A warm climate is something along the equator where there IS NOT SNOW. A cold climate is something along the poles and THERE IS NO HEAT WAVE. How do you loons explain that just a few years ago, there was an outcry against Global Cooling and the dire warnings that we would all freeze to death? You doomsayers always dodge this one.

Permits should not be given away. We are talking about protecting the commons here. The problem with taxes is that the government then becomes dependent upon the revenue and ends up promoting what is taxed. An example being the so-called "sin" taxes on tobbacco, alcohol, gambling, etc. That is why the first rest area after you cross the border into New Hampshire from Mass. is a State Liquor store. We should not try to reinvent the wheel, the conscientious portions of the planet have already been working on the issue via the Kyoto Accords -- its time to revisit the treaty.

Jesse, I thought that I have stayed fairly current with environmental matters of the years. I don't really recall this constant reference to global cooling that the right keeps talking about. I remember there were concerns about the ozone layer -- which were valid and which we took steps to hopefully keep it from getting bigger. I also remember discussion that we might be moving into an era of very volatile and unpredictable weather. But I guess I never remember a preponderance of the scientific community claim that we were going into global cooling, and I am pretty certain I would have remembered if a large percentage of the developed world pressed for a treaty like the Kyoto accords. Perhaps you could direct me to these scientists who were trumpeting global cooling and the nations which entered into treaties to prevent its spread.

Yes JLF, I think you have a good point. It is not possible to convince someone if that someone is not willing to be convinced. It is an unproductive us of time.

I tend to call the deniers on it when they spout nonsense for a different reason- because some individual lacking in science background visiting these discussions might be naive enough to think that the deniers are telling the truth.

One problem I see here is that the polluters are the funders of our elected Congress people. I like your idea of an emissions tax. I had never thought of it that way before.

Nothing makes anything so difficult to understand as it being in your vested interest not to understand. End of discussion.

Rich-
Regarding your line of reasoning against Mitch- the reasoning is faulty. Yeah there were few people who saw through Bush in 2002, but I was one of them. There may have been few people in 1400 who believed the world was round- but sailors mostly thought it was round because they noticed that ships disappear over the horizon hull first, then masts last. It has to do with deciding after you get some facts. The scientists have produced the facts, and you are not interested in them.

Your reasoning is wrong because the facts were there on Bush, but few saw them because they were distracted by a bunch of WMD nonsense. The facts are there on global warming too- but many are distracted by Al Gore's electricity bill or fears that they may have their car keys yanked out of their hands. It has to do with reasoning through the barriers put up by your personal dislikes or the fears that whisper to cling to the status quo.

If there was not climate change Minnesota would be the "Land of 10,000 Glacier". Climates change they always have and always will. I agree it maybe warmer but I don't buy that we are the cause. If so why did glaciers retreat seven other times? There was concern about 30 years ago that the planet was cooling. There's a Jun 20 1974 article about it.
How can we know what the average climate is from only about 100 years of record keeping?
Well Chris I paid for my car why shouldn't I be able to drive?
Here's some that disagree with the party line.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/
Here's some of what they have to say
"Unstoppable Global Warming-Every 1500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield,
276 pages, $24.95) assembles physical and historical evidence of the
natural climate cycle that ranges from ancient records in Rome, Egypt, and
China; to 12,000 antique paintings in museums; to Vikings' tooth enamel in
Greenland cemeteries; and to high-tech analyses of ice cores, seabed
sediments, tree rings, fossil pollen and cave stalagmites.
"The Romans wrote about growing wine grapes in Britain in the first
century," says Avery, "and then it got too cold during the Dark Ages.
Ancient tax records show the Britons grew their own wine grapes in the 11th
century, during the Medieval Warming, and then it got too cold during the
Little Ice Age. It isn't yet warm enough for wine grapes in today's
Britain. Wine grapes are among the most accurate and sensitive indicators
of temperature and they are telling us about a cycle. They also indicate
that today's warming is not unprecedented."
"We have lots of physical evidence for the 1,500-year cycle," says
Singer. "Yet we don't have physical evidence that human-emitted CO2 is
adding significantly to the natural cycle. The current warming started in
1850, too early to be blamed on industries and autos."
Singer notes that humanity learned of the 1,500-year cycle only
recently, from the first Greenland ice cores brought up in 1983. The cycle
was too long and moderate to be observed by earlier peoples without
thermometers and written records. The Greenland ice cores showed the
1,500-year cycle going back 250,000 years. It raises temperatures at the
latitude of New York and Paris by 1-2 degrees C for centuries at a time,
more at the North and South Poles, with a global average of 0.5 degrees C.
In 1987, the first Antarctic ice core showed the cycle extending back
through the last 400,000 years and four Ice Ages-and demonstrated the cycle
was indeed global.
There is also evidence of the 1,500-year cycle in seabed sediments from
six oceans, in ancient tree rings from around the Northern Hemisphere, in
glacier advances and retreats from Greenland to New Zealand, and in cave
stalagmites from every continent including South Africa. The North American
Pollen Database shows nine complete reorganizations of the continent's
trees and plants in the past 14,000 years, or one every 1,650 years.
"The deepest seabed sediment cores show the cycle has been going on for
at least a million years," says Avery.
Sunspot observations over the past 400 years, along with modern
analysis of carbon and beryllium isotopes, link the 1,500-year cycle to
variations recently detected by satellites in the sun's irradiance.
Antarctic ice studies show global temperatures tracking closely with
atmospheric CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. However, Singer and
Avery note the studies also show that temperature changes preceded the CO2
changes by about 800 years. Thus, more warming has produced more
atmospheric CO2, rather than more CO2 producing global warming. This makes
sense, say the authors, because the oceans hold vastly more CO2 than the
air, and warming forces water to release some its gases.
Singer and Avery say that the science of the natural cycle runs counter
to what many believe and fear will happen as a result of man-made global
warming:
* Wild species won't become extinct in our warming because they've been
through at least 600 previous warmings, including the Holocene Warming
just 5,000 years ago that was much warmer than today.

* The seas won't rise to drown New York before the next cooling, because
90 percent of the world's remaining ice is in the melt-resistant
Antarctic. Even a 5 degree C warming would decrease its ice mass by only
1.5 percent, over centuries.

* Warming won't bring famine, because it brings what crops like -- longer
growing seasons, more sunlight, and few untimely frosts. More CO2 also
stimulates plants' growth, and enhances their water use efficiency.
"We hope our book will help calm the rampant hysteria about global
warming and the flawed Greenhouse models," emphasizes Avery. "We should be
using our resources and technology to find the best ways to adapt to the
inevitable but moderate warming to come, not to study one climate model
after another, scare people to death, and pass crippling 'environmental'
legislation that would deny the world the economic growth it needs to
overcome poverty, the greatest problem of all."

S. Fred Singer, an NCPA adjunct scholar, is professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, and President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He was the first Director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, and served five years as vice chair of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres. He received the first Science Medal from the British Interplanetary Society, and won a NASA commendation in 1997 for his research on particle clouds.

Dennis T. Avery is a senior fellow of the Hudson Institute. He has served as a policy analyst for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the U.S. Department of State, where he won the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement in 1983. His book, Global Food Progress, was published by Hudson in 1991. Reader's Digest excerpted his article on the Medieval Warming, "What's Wrong With Global Warming?" in October 1999.

Why weren't they invited to speak about global warming?

Here's a bigger list of those Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

I find this whole buying, selling, and etc of pollution rights a bit confusing. How does Joe buying the right to throw crap in my yard from Jim, who had the opportunity to throw crap in my yard but didn't, keep my yard cleaner? I just don't see the gain for my yard.

No one disputes natural climate change. At issue is the rate of change and unpreparedness of mankind to cope with the effects. We are heading into new waters with unpredictable ends. It is prudent to do what is in our power to understand and impact the potential threat. Why is it conservatives are so quick to torture any and every Muslim who may or may not be a terrorist but don't want to go near, let alone react to the overwhelming evidence that mankind accelerated climate change could result in the death or displacement of millions? Typical myopic BS.

Sam you act as if we'll wake up one morning to find water up to our knee's. Not gonna happen that way. It'll be gradual.
IPCC report
Scenario A1FI
Best estimate temperature rise of 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [26 to 59 cm] (10 to 23 inches)
23 inches 2 feet over the next what 30, 50, 100, 200 years the oceans will rise. I grew up on the coast and living next to the ocean is a crap shoot.
Is the erosion that occurs along ALL coast line man made. Our land masses are always changing. We've tried to save NC's outer banks from errosion didn't work. Look at Yellowstone National Park. So how are we gonna make global changes when small local changes seem out of our grasp. Why not work on adapting to these changes as well instead of just trying to change the weather patterns. Adapting it's worked for billions of years. Sometimes when global warming is brought up it's like it's from some Sci-Fi movie and the duh duh duh "Wall of Watery Death" is headed our way. Dr. James Hansen said that there is "usefulness of extreme warming scenarios to obtain political and policy actions" sounds like exaggeration to me.
My whole point is that there are two side to this debate and politics seem to have ignored one side because they don't have a movie star promoting their side so why listen to them. They are nothing but MYOPIC crack pots. Thats BS Sam. And narrow minded. Sorry couldn't think of a .50 word for narrow minded to seem smarter:(

JLF did anything within my statements call you names or anyone else that see this issue different than I do. Why is it the left, liberals, democrats or whatever you want to call yourselves always seem to finish your statements with name calling? Hmmm confidence issues? Whatever. I'm trying to understand this issue and I don't let my mind close to other possibilities. I like to learn and form my own decisions and now let the newscast make up my mind for me. Wow I must be crazy to think like that. Or maybe you prefer mindless hypocrite liar moron idiot stupid ass right wing bushie hmmm what else, myopic moron (oh wait said that but you seem to like it so much I'll throw it in again just for you) lemming. Does that name calling make you happy? Enjoy yourself JLF.

Charles you act as if the world is not coming to end tomorrow, let's not sweat it. Somebody else will deal with it because we will be long dead. Who cares? I got mine, will eat it, spend it or screw it till I die and that's all that counts. Therin lies the distinction between sentient creatures and dumb predators. Any ninny can conclude that 6 billion humans and their shelter, food, fuel and trash impacts the enviornment. Certainly there was once a land bridge between Florida and Cuba. There were oceans for eons in the Mississippi valley. Antartica was once green and the Great Lakes were carved by glaciers. All of these events took place over vast time frames. It is established now that our influence is accelerating these events. What are the two sides?? All I can see is some who wish to get ahead of the curve and some who don't want to drop the dime, seeing they won't live long enough to feel the effect.

It is so stupid of the Court to have done this, especially when all the facts supporting Global warming are manipulated, and falsified.
CO2 we have found through Ice core samples and other geological sourses follows warming trends, and also during warm periods, the ocean waters expell CO2, after absorbing it during cold periods.
Many of the scientis that worked the IPCC report walked off the scene when the IPCC misquoted and reworded their statements on their reports to make what they wanted a fact. Five of them even sued IPCC to have their names removed as IPCC kept the names to make it look like there was support from these scientis.
You cannot brak down the Global warming arguement and put it back together without modifying it to fit, while you can the opposition with no modifications needed.
Models used to show the Global Warming effects are made with the same programs used to forcast weather in local and national forcasts, and do not have the ability to handle all the data (cycles, history, Global Ocean effects, ECT.) needed to make such predictions so are faulty from the start.
I agree with a number of statements by experts that this is a political/economical stunt that is benefiting less scrupulous scientists, and governments for jobs, grants and money.

Let me see, cap and trade or tax? How about, let's actually address the issue?

To go slightly off topic, I continue to doubt any of the so-called market-based "solutions." Legislaters continue to try to play tricks with the tax code hoping that someone will act as desired, and repeatedly the results fail to live up to the promises. Instead, why not take direct action?

If we want the most polluting plants replaced with less polluting plants, why not pay to do so? We can just allocate the funds to upgrade, repair, or replace the most polluting plants. This allows improvement to be focused where it is needed most. The one difference is that the cost will be distributed across the entire US tax base instead of just the consumers of the affected plant, but presumably the benefit will be felt by all.

If we wish to reduce CO2 emissions, then we need to admit that there will be a cost incurred. Trying to sell manipulative schemes that would do it for "free" is merely a chance for politicians to claim they have done something without requiring actual results.

S. Fred Singer: In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association.

Dennis T. Avery, is a partisan member of the Republican party with ties going back to the Reagan administration. He is the source of the lie about organic foods being more dangerous to eat than pesticide sprayed ones, which hs totally been disproven, he is a constant big business friend and works for councils that list oil companies as major contributors.

"Why weren't they invited to speak about global warming?"
Because they are bought and payed for by Oil and Gas companies, why would they be invited to speak?

Who bought and paid for Al Gore and the scientist that have been at the front of the global warming apocalypse . None of them seem to be living in poverty. EVERYBODY GETS PAID to do research. So if that's your litmus that they accepted money for their research then all research is suspect pro and con.

And the world is not ending tomorrow. Waves of water are not going to come rushing to shore wiping out New York. People are not going to burst into flames because of the increased heat. The world is not ending tomorrow. Yes we can change the way we do things but quit standing on the street corner waving your signs trying to scare people. Change happens without scare tactics.

I've showed a list of people who disagree with the way global warming is presented. Can anyone show me the list of 2500+ scientist that are on board with the current thinking. Haven't seen that list yet. Some of the scientist on that list threatened legal action because their names were included. Why would they do that. Why would they be added without their consent?

Dr. James Hansen said that there is "usefulness of extreme warming scenarios to obtain political and policy actions". Why use extreme warming scenarios if the science is so rock solid let it speak for itself without sensationalist PR spin. Supporting Global Warming has become a political "brownie" point toward getting elected.

Sorry for being simple minded folks. I just have to question things. I mean first my eggs were good for me. Then they were bad for me. And now they are good for me again. I just can't figure it all out. Don't worry I'll see the light soon. Enjoy your higher priced Easter Eggs everyone and have a happy Easter. The myopic freak hypocrite liar moron. Enjoy

I think you could gussy up the credits system to maintain the viable incentives for emmissions reduction. It has worked well in previous programs.

Here's another suggestion that would be even more amusing. If you have ever bought gasoline at a Sam's Club station, you know that if you insert a member card, you are treated to a discounted price. I think every vehicle registration should come in the form of a plastic card that must be inserted at the pump. The price per gallon should be based on the fuel efficiency of the vehicle (gas guzzlers pay more).

Charles to my knowledge the posters here are repeating public knowledge from various sources. Some of thsoe sources are obviously politically or ideologically driven, (left or right). Some are economically driven. In the end it is all opinion. It is my opinion that if the global warming (fossil fuels) scare sticks a dull and dirty knife into the oil industry so much the better. World peace will get a great shot in the arm when we can kiss off the Middle East.

Rich I don't know if I'm flattered or alarmed by your intimate attention. Beware of your oral fetish: it would not take much to for some RNC pansy to suck your brains out and what would we do without your fair, balanced and enlighted commentary.

Sam don't faint but I agree with you that we need to get away from mid east oil. In the mean time we need to find financially viable alternatives. We also need to use the resources we have on hand.(ie our own oil reserves ,anwar, the gulf but there needs to be strict guidelines)

"Who bought and paid for Al Gore and the scientist that have been at the front of the global warming apocalypse . None of them seem to be living in poverty. EVERYBODY GETS PAID to do research. So if that's your litmus that they accepted money for their research then all research is suspect pro and con."

I wasn't aware anyone bought and paid for Al Gore. He has been, if nothing else worthwhile, an environmental activist for as long as most can remember, and the very scientist you quote, out of context, Dr. James Hansen, happens to work for NASA, and is one of the scientists that blew the lid off of the Bush administration's censoring of global warming proponents. My guess is he gets paid the same whatever he supports, but I'm open to any other info.

Scientists have reached as much consensus as is scientifically possible. The Supreme Court has ruled. Newspapers consistently put global warming at the top of the agenda and so do people, as confirmed in my recent survey (see my article: What characterizes our Times?). So, what more has to be done to move politicians into action? I've just published a new article on what they can do: Ten Recommendations to deal with global warming.

I hope to get some feedback on that!
Cheers! Sam Carana

The diconnect come when you have Al Gore saying the sea's will rise 24 feet and the IPCC report say's worst case is 18 to 23 inches. That's a big difference.

Good article and analysis. We are going to have to use tax incentives and consequences to make this happen, but it had tremendous potential if we do it the right way. Auctioning the permits off off is a good, simple choice, but again this can't only be about punishment, it should also be about reward and encouraging companies to go green!

Dan M., we already have some cap and trading going on with respect to environmental issues -- actually started under Bush I who actually had some principles when it came to the environment, unlike his son. There was a development of a system called "wetland banks," the way the system worked was if you were say a State and you wanted to build a highway across a marsh and in doing so you were going to have to fill in or otherwise destroy Y number of acres of natural wetlands. You then went to a person who had land that was not currently a wetland, but was capable of becoming a wetland and you said, "I will pay you $ number of dollars, if you will create 2xY number of wetlands on your land." That person creates the wetlands and you have a net zero loss of wetlands. Doing that with CO2 is going to be more complicated, but it involves a similar concept. Under the Kyoto Accords allocations were made among the participating nations -- the problem is that nothing like the Kyoto Accords can possibly work unless you some how rein in the two worst polluters on the planet -- U.S. and China. In order to initially gain the White House Bush made it appear to moderates that he was going to cooperate with the international movement and he appointed a woman from, I believe it was NJ, who known as Republican Moderate capable of bipartisan efforts on environmental issues. He flat out misrepresented what he was going to do to her and she accepted his appointment, he then turned around and pulled the rug out from her in one of his famous bait and switch manuevers. Climate is clearly changing -- a preponderance of the scientists believe that man is causing the change, but whether you believe man is causing the change or whether you believe we are going into a tropical cycle -- it doesn't really matter because it is clear that we can at least slow the change. We can talk like its no big deal if we are returning to a period reminiscent of the age of dinosaurs -- but unless you believe in legends like Atlantis -- it is a big deal because it is clear now that these changes are not, pardon the pun, necessarily glacial once they pick up steam they can move relatively fast and modern "civilized" man has never experienced this before. There are a lot of us, and this type of change is going to cause massive demographic shifts. Take the United States for example, we have growing populations in the Southwest -- the latest studies indicate that the Southwest is in and is likely to remain in a permanent drought condition. If a return of a warm planet condition occurrs, we know that the coasts will be hit the hardest -- but that is where the population centers are. We need to start thinking about this situation with serious contemplation and get our collective heads out of the sand (or in some cases more smelly locations.)

Sam, in your arctile 'Ten Recommendations to deal with global warming', you recommend this point to be used as the basis for a World Treaty that goes beyond Kyoto. Whenever I hear about a World Treaty that goes beyond Kyoto, alarm bells go off as I am worried about effectively creating a World Government that, on the pretence of stewardship over Earth, will evolve into a bureaucratic monstrosity that will start dictating how we live in every aspect of life.

Just like the US agreed on Federal Government with the precaution of appending a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, limits should be set to whatever global authority will come out of this.

Instead of calling for a World Government to dictate every aspect of our lives, any such World Treaty should work on the basis of respect for direct choice and ideological neutrality, as fundamental starting points. Such a Treaty should recommend taxes and subsidies in such ways that people have as much direct choice as possible in how the details work out for them individually. A Global Treaty on global warming should stick to global warming. It should not be allowed to be used by socialists, capitalists, religious fundamentalists or whatever groups to advance their particular ideology and impose it on society at large.

It makes sense to tax those who sell polluting energy and to give that money to those who sell energy that - as you say - doesn't add extra heat, as long as we can agree what is extra heat. Similarly, it makes sense to tax meat for its methane and use the money to support more responsible lifestyles, as long as we can agree what is most responsible.

Perhaps scientists should do less analysis of the dangers and instead focus more on the solutions. I'll leave that up to the scientists, but I do repeat that when joining negotiations on a world treaty, we should table the principles of direct choice and ideological neutrality.

I agree with you, Direct Choice, and I support your suggestions. A tax on polluting energy should NOT be used to help the poor pay higher prices of - say - petrol, as that would only defeat the purpose of such a tax. Instead, such a tax should be used to subsidize forms of energy that don't add heat. Hydrogen doesn't, provided that something like solar or wind power was used to produce it. It doesn't take too much science to work out a system that will operate on such a basis.

A tax should be used to avoid something that is bad and the revenue should be used to improve the situation. We shouldn't tax companies simply because they were profitable. Making profits shouldn't be a sin and people shouldn't be encouraged to stay poor in the hope to receive government funding. We need a political system that encourages improvements.

If we can globally agree on what is good or bad, then it's possible to have global treaties on that basis. Pollution is bad and if someone can find ways of supplying energy without adding extra heat, then it's worthwhile supporting them.

Similarly, I suggest that it's worthwhile to support competition and diversity worldwide. Monopolies should be taxed, with the proceeds going to solutions that create more competition and diversity. However, this is best dealt with in a separate treaty. Direct choice is by implication respected, if not actively supported.

In both cases, such treaties observe the principle of political neutrality by focusing on a single issue and by combining taxes with subsidies, in such a way that bad practices on the issue are taxed and the revenue goes to initiatives that improve the situation. Any international treaty should improve a single issue, rather than serve specific ideological goals. Instead of having a UN with a standing army and an internatuional court, we should have separate treaties on specific issues. Only by negotiating such issues in separate treaties can we keep them separate. That is our best chance of avoiding dictatorial world government.

Finally, I want to leave the door open for seeking bi-lateral agreements with other countries, in case there's little or no progress with a global treaty on an issue. The US has reached regional and bi-literal agreements with many other countries on the topic of trade. In the face of failure of countries to reach a global agreement on trade, such regional and bi-lateral trade agreements have been very successful and are still setting the agenda for a future global trade agreement. It's a second-best alternative, but it could become the only alternative if we fail to reach global agreement on reducing emissions. We should start thinking ahead, in terms of taxes on or boycots of products from countries that refuse to lower emissions. In that case, we need to take another look at all our trade agreements.

I'm so pleased to follow these discussions. The high intellectual level at which thoughts are being exchanged here is a welcome delight, compared to the vulgarities that are so commonly exchanged elsewhere on this topic. We need more ideas like this! I just wish that any politicians were reading all this.

Sam., Great article and brilliant idea. Me, I'm more worried about all those thousands of coal plants that are being built in China. Check the wind direction lately? And that COAL PLANT BEING BUILT IN Wyoming to supplement California energy needs. Those plants spew out more problems than all American individuals can save in a year's time!!!! A lump of coal makes a great Christmas present? Breathe any analytical air lately? Thanks.

Rich Kaye: Here you go "Climate is clearly changing -- a preponderance of the scientists believe that man is causing the change, but whether you believe man is causing the change or whether you believe we are going into a tropical cycle -- it doesn't really matter because it is clear that we can at least slow the change. "

"Clark, Why is it that the scientists that dont buy into global warming are "fake" or have an agenda, or are bought off? But the ones that DO buy into it are legit, honest, and believable? "

My guess is because the oil industry doesn't have science on its side, so it's forced to pay fake scientists for fake reports. After all, they do stand to lose just a teensy bit when we shift to alternative sources of energy. And, if you actually believe that we'd still be even debating this, had they figured out a way to profit from wind and sunlight, you're sorely mistaken.




"In this global warming "equation" the first thing to rule out would be human factors because we have evidence of this action occurring without humans. "

How so? CO2 levels have risen steadily since the industrial revolution, and have now reached a point where the rise is staggering. See, this is what I mean about the stance of the "right" on this issue. You simply have no rational, realistic logic, because your argument is not based upon science, but rather on ideology. Again, when you have to rely upon mythical fantasies and paid, fake "journalist" to convey your story, something is terribly wrong with your line of thinking.

I would strongly suggest your rent a copy of Gore's movie and watch it. You will understand much more about this subject, and will be able to discuss things from an informed stance, rather than by being forced to rely upon ideological talking points. The science is in, and it's irrefutable by all except the industry with no future, and those who're bent ideologically to cheer for them until their dying day.

As I've said over and over again, let's assume that global warming isn't real, for the sake of furthering this argument, in order to show the irrationality of your position. Can we find agreement in that oil is a finite resource that will eventually become scarce? Can we also agree that, as a modern, industrialized society, we absolutely depend upon reliable, affordable, reasonably safe energy?

Given these points of agreement, assuming that we can reach them, how does it make any sense whatsoever to stand in the way of progress, merely because of a desire to cling to an ideological viewpoint? Forget the science. Forget that the oil industry is paying for propoganda, and is flat out lying to us all. Only consider, for a moment, the FACT that oil is a finite resource that we WILL have to replace one day.

How does it make any sense at all to wait until we are suddenly forced to make appropriate changes, rather than to begin to make those changes now?

Follow the money on this one. I guarantee you that it's no mistake at all that the oil industry has become the most profitable industry in history of the corporate world. They know damn well that their days are numbered, and they're doing everything they can, including illegal war, to secure their financial future, post oil days. The moment they figure out a way to charge for sunshine and wind, oil is out the door.

" Clark your stupidity is astonishing."

Impressive way to sway opinions...insult someone that you disagree with. Brilliant plan. Perfect.




"The validity of that movie is at the core of this debate. Its like me saying to you "believe everything I say without question, and THEN we can discuss the topic reasonably.""

The validity of the movie, which is based entirely upon very in-depth, broad, long-standing scientific research, is being questioned by the oil industry, genius. What validity does the oil industry have in attacking thousands of independent scientists from around the world?




"Watch Michael Moore's movie and THEN we can discuss 9-11 reasonably."

Moore made some excellent points in that movie that have yet to be examined. Care to delve into a discussion on Bush crime family member's close personal ties to Saudi royals, some of whom CONTINUE to fund terrorists? No, I didn't think you would.

And, it's hardly a comparison at all, which doesn't surprise me, since you people seem to lack the ability to engage actual thought on this subject. Gore's movie was based upon pure, highly documented science. Moore's was based upon political opinion and known historical facts. The comparison is as valid as saying that a report on alzeimer's that's published by Johns Hopkins is invalid and unworthy of consideration because a particular biography of JFK was written by a partisan.





"Id just like to see someone explain away all of the proven climate changes and various ic-ages and re-heating etc that has gone on for billions of years without humans."

Gee....maybe that's why some people recommend watching Gore's movie, do ya think? You don't want to see any proof, which is why you refuse to watch it. You want to continue to bury your head in the sand and swallow the disproven nonsense spewed out by the oil industry, rather than accept documented proof.





"I mean, isnt it POSSIBLE that what has been happening for billions of years, relentlessly, is happening now?"

Current levels of CO2 are at historic levels, which you would know, if you'd had the testicular fortitude to watch Gore's movie. No, it's not possible that what is happening now has been happening for billions of years. The dramatic increase in CO2 levels is directly tied to our increasing use of fossil fuels. The evidence is crystal clear, and is impossible to deny. But, you just go ahead and keep swallowing the tripe spewed out by the oil industry. It seems to be working real well for you.

Now, tell me again how stupid I am, because I prefer to rely upon documented science, rather than fake reports, paid for by the very industry that is threatened by the science.

Rich, I guess the quote was too long for you to understand what I said, so I have whittled it down some for you: "but whether you believe man is causing the change or whether you believe we are going into a tropical cycle -- it doesn't really matter because it is clear that we can at least slow the change." Do you get the point now?