Not sure how you can give up on something we haven’t seriously tried yet, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it didn’t end up being a major part of the solution.

Anyway, just my impression…

The problem is political. No individual country (or the world as a whole) has a political system that will allow technical solutions to be imposed. The market determines what happens and no-one controls that.

Climatologists are predicting 10 or 15 years of relatively cool temperatures before GW takes off again….

[JR: No climatologists have been making such predictions, as I have blogged previously.]

Diminished ocean organisms as acidity increases:

Hall-Spencer, J. M. et al. Nature advance online publication doi:10.1038/nature07051 (2008).

http://www.nature.com/ news/ 2008/ 080606/ full/ news.2008.8 77.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 2/ hi/ science/ nature/ 7437862.stm

and sson there will be only jellyfish to eat. Know any receipes?

Could be started right now…

What about the Himalayan and Andes? Mass weight 3 x ice, height as well 3 x.
Any calculations about these wedges? Must be tenfold all other wedges. Too smart to understand?

A tricky issue is what to do about land use, land use change and forestry emissions, and some agriculture emissions, which would be hard to measure. One approach would be a separate price based market, where clearing any land would attract a tax, and revegetation would attract a negative tax. The tax could be chosen so that it is similar to the carbon price in the cap-and-trade scheme. An advantage to this approach is that the tax could reflect other externalities associated with land use change, such as habitat benefits. This could decrease the species extinctions that would be caused by climate change.

Drwood, anything that halts or slows the economic progress of the third and fourth worlds will cause more extinction events then a tiny change in the world’s average temp.
If you can’t measure it, it isn’t a science. you know like carbon forced climatology.

Money spent on renewables does seem well spent, as they will keep going down in price.

Also, we already have evidence of jellyfish blooms. Mans there is nothing there to eat the little ones.

http://www.realclimate.org/ index.php/ archives/ 2007/ 10/ the-certainty-of-uncertainty/ langswitch_lang/ sw

which means that possibly even 450 ppm is too high to avoid catastrophy.

Tommaso - Hansen’s recent paper suggests that we will eventually need to bring CO2 levels back down to 350 ppm, which would require activities with negative emissions - land management and tropical reforestation seem to be an obvious choice.

Cap/trade can possibly succeed in establishing an artificial market that will maximize deployment and reduce emissions. Although there are big questions, including Earl Killian’s cogent old high emitting vs new low emitting conundrum, a market system works if it is properly constructed. It is really very simple, requirng only buyers (fossil fuel burners), sellers (any one producing non fossil based fuel or energy or its equivalent in efficiency), a product ( deployment, production and generation) and a medium of exchange (tax and/or penalty avoidance coupons).

Auctioning has many advantages over free permits as a permit allocation method. Auctioning is simpler, while handing out free permits based on a firms previous emissions can lead to perverse incentives to have higher early emissions; handing out free permits means more opportunity for rent seeking from polluters; auctioning makes the polluter pay, while when permits are handed out for free firms make substantial windfall profits when they pass costs on to polluters, in either case firms are likely to pass costs on to consumers; with auctioning, the money raised can be used to reduce distortionary taxes, compensate people on low or middle incomes, or reduce emissions on areas not covered by the emissions trading scheme.

If needed, I think not, do we want to pull the anti-carbon parachute rip cord while world society is still miles above sustainable economic development atmosphere? At 2ppms/year we are 35 years from 450ppms. without the damage a anti-carbon jihad would create our global GNP will quadruple, giving all 4x the funds to “fix” the alleged carbon forced AGW.

Drwood, Another tax structure? Don’t be silly. Read your statement, “negative tax….where most emissions take place, to low income countries.
Anything that leads to a world government is unacceptable.
Has anyone bothered to look at actual current average World temps recently? The facts are mooting this argument.