Some of us spooked by climate predictions. Some of us are spooked by the risk that doing something about climate change will stuff the economy and push us out of a job. James Hansen and his ilk are not helping with their consatnt "we must put a price on carbon" mantra. It is an expensive, potentially destabilizing approach because it depends on pushing up the price of the dirty alternative to drive change.

We needd to think outside the "we must have a grand ETS style scheme that aspires to be "the answer to everything"" and "we must put a price on carbon" mindsets. We need to take the effort to look at the issues involved in cleaning up major sources of emissions and devise separate schemes that are optimal for the source/industry.

For example, if we are concerned about the fuel consumption of new cars perhaps we should ask ourselves whether it is smarter to try and do this by putting up the price of fuel OR to leave the price of fuel alone and to simply use regulations to drive down the average fuel consumption of new cars?

Or perhaps we should ask ourselves if it is smarter to drive investment in clean electricty by putting a price on carbon that is high enough to justify investment in clean electricty (PRICE OUTCOME: Average price has to jump above the price of clean electricty before investment starts.) OR Drive investment by negotiating price and sales guarantees for the supply of clean electricity? (PRICE OUTCOME: Average price only ramps up slowly as the percentage of clean electricty increases. For more details see http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/05/27/guest-post-ets-is-the-problem-not-the-answer/

We need some fresh thinking re how we should manage emissions reduction.

i agree with the writers theory that the tax should go to the people[not to big buisness or specualators]..which it wil..clearly revealed by those lobbieing for it[economists]

its a new tax GLOBALly folks..[the sooner you wake up to that fact the better]..not one sinking island will be saved..[because its not a case of water rising but islands sinking]..as previously posted,

also if warming STATE warming..[this climate CHANGE buzzword covers the natual cooling and warming CHANGE..that climate will inevitably change is beyond dispute[but that carbon leads the change is

<<To begin with,..cap and trade is a misnomer...A “cap” increases the price of energy,..as a tax does.<>>

<<It is wrong and disingenuous to try to hide the fact that a cap is a tax.>>

<<Other characteristics of the “cap” approach is that because of unpredictable price volatility it makes millionaires on Wall Street and other trading floors but offers the public little.>>

<<Offsets are usually allowed and often poorly substantiated and verified,..creating more uncertainty.>>

<<The case in point is the European experience:..they spent $50 billion on carbon trading,..their CO2 emissions actually increased,.. and the largest payment went to a German coal-burning utility!>>

>>Cap-and-trade is fraught with opportunities for special interests, political trading,..obfuscation from public scrutiny,..accounting errors,..and outright fraud.>>..EGSACTLY

No, we cannot reverse climate change. We cannot do anything about climate change. We have to wait until the climate changes itself.

No need to bother with Part 2, thankyou.

Global warming from any cause, generally proceeds a mini ice age.
CO2 emissions do enhance greenhouse gases but only when there is cloud cover and water vapor around. We can't control the weather or climate so let us learn to adapt. Particularly produce food adequately.

Certainly try to reduce pollution, engage in sustainable
agriculture and stop the use of chemical fertilisers (non organic) and
pesticides and herbicides. Sea levels have risen and lowered all over
the globe at various times. But during ice ages etc., they are lower
than today's levels. The trouble is the colder the planet gets, and
some scientist will and do agree we are an ice planet. It's only been
in the last 10,000 years agriculture has been established, and that
couldn't have occurred in the Northern Hemisphere before this, other than in Middle East. Nor was the Northern Americas, Asia or Europe occupied by humans, they all went South until 12,000 - 10,000 years ago. So we should welcome warmer temps. As Putin remarked, a few more centigrade will assist our agriculture.

However, the industrialized nations are contributing to CO2 emissions. But so is volcanoes, and fossil fuels. And uncontrolled coal surface fires in China, India and Indonesia.

We need to explore renewable energy resources, solar and please
don't let us lose electricity, because that will place human kind back in the dark ages. Excuse the pun.

We must be able to sustain our agriculture otherwise we will die.

Yes, a tax on carbon, please. No favoring special groups, no complicated horse trading, just a fast reduction of coal use.

In public policy, complexity itself is a flaw, look the the National Electricity Market? does anyone think that is working well?

A tax for carbon emissions?
Yes! Perfect!
But it should not be returned to people indiscriminately.

Instead, it should be used to PAY PEOPLE FOR REMOVING CARBON from the atmosphere, the same payment per unit carbon as the tax for emissions of carbon.

Remember that, it would give a sequesterer 3.67 times more for char sequestration that the tax for CO2 emissions.

By that, making char and digging it into agricultural land would be a good affair, not to mention the improvement of the soil.

Inventing a good verification model would give poor people a chance to economical improvement, since making char needs low investments.

However, the verification model should be combined with payment restrictions: If you make harm to the ecosystems or emit harmful gasses during the charring process, you should not be paid.
FG