This is certainly a problem. A capable cap-and-trade system would have the effect of a historically large tax increase on consumers and business. It would have a significant harmful effect on the U.S. economy, affecting consumers and businesses alike. Some businesses may fold; others may move to countries without such systems. Some of the prominent likely countries that would benefit have a lot of other issues that make it unwise for us to help them grow. One particular one comes to mind with a harsh dictatorship, pollution, a huge population compared to available productive land, an aggressive stance toward neighboring countries, etc. Well, they have policies towards conservative journalists that might be admired by some.

None of this is likely to make conservatives enthusiastic about cap-and-trade, though. On top of that, some proposals for a cap-and-trade system involve an auction where the proceeds are used to dramatically increase the size and power of the Federal government. I’m sure conservatives love to tax and spend and borrow and spend as much as liberals, but such a big government boost is against the typical theoretical conservative ideology, at least.

Maybe the way to go with cap-and-trade is something like what Robert Reich (no conservative) suggested:

robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/06/mccain-obama-and-cap-and-trade-we-need.html

Instead of centralizing power even more in the Federal government with cap-and-trade proceeds (keep in mind that half the time your opponents will be in power), send it back to the citizens or taxpayers in a check, payroll tax cut, income tax cut, or whatever. This will soften the harmful effect of the pseudo-tax, will make the whole thing more politically palatable and sustainable, less subject to pork, etc.

Where would we be if in the 1770, there weren’t enough people to fight for independence from Britain.

What about the 1860’s and the attempt to keep this country together and then elimanating slavery. People were willing to move to unpopulated states so they would vote to be free states instead of slave states, thus throwing the balance to the Union. And they were to fight in a war.

What about those who fought in all our wars? Or went to Iraq and Afghanistan?

Or any of the other advances that humans have done, sometimes heroically.

There have been some reports saying that the costs of reducing CO2 release enough to slow global warming before 2050 would cost between 0.6 percent and 1.5 percent of GDP. Not combat and risk getting killed or maimed. Not travel to foreign countries. Not long hours of backbreaking human labor. But a small fraction of our Gross Domestic Product.

I prefer to call the crisis, Human Machine and Activity Global Warming.

Human because why leave out the women, we may as well blame them also.

Machine because by saying machine, people will get the idea that it’s not humans we have to change, but it’s our Machines that we have to change. Some of the Machines we use are, obviously, unhuman, but there is a point to the destinction. Instead of coal fired machines, we use solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear for electricity production. Instead of internal combution engines, we use electrical battery power in our vehicle where possible. Instead of poor design in our buildings that are inefficient and wasteful, we design and build into them efficiencies, solar collection for heat and solar lighting.

We don’t have to make huge sacrifices like going to war to do all these things. We just have to do things smarter and with intention. And it would be a shame if we have gotten so lazy and corrupt to not do the right thing.

I didn’t buy the argument, because any new oil drilled in the US and Canada will not replace any Nigerian oil, since the world is already using oil beyond the capacity to drill it out. Oil is going to be drilled out of Nigeria, Period. Either it can be drilled out to the benefit of its people, which is something Americans ought to be interested in, or other companies (Chinese? Russian?) would drill it, and probably make a worse mess of things than Shell.

Foreign oil companies drilling in Nigeria (for example) did not try very hard to reduce human rights violations, and no government (like the US or Dutch or UK governments) forced to companies to sign contracts with Nigeria to forcefully address those concerns. Instead, making as much money as possible has been the only concern of the oil companies, and the US, Dutch and UK governments, to say nothing of Nigeria’s government, which is incapable of representing its people.

They could have signed contracts that guaranteed as much money to the Nigerian government as the ones actually signed, but reduced the profit oil companies would make selling the oil in order to properly compensate the people and protect the local environment, or even to have the UK, US and Dutch governments compensate those monies forgone by the oil companies doing that extra work.

No, I don’t think it is hyperbole. Your logic seems pretty confused. You admit Global Warming is real, but don’t want to do anything about it? Have you read the articles on this blog? Are you familiar with the concept of “tipping points” (e.g., release of methane from Permafrost) and the scary fact that we don’t really know what degree of warming may trigger these positive feedbacks? Have you read the IPCC report summary? Do you realize that the IPCC report is most likely too conservative, and that the positive feedbacks are not accounted for in the models yet? Please educate yourself a bit more before posting.

The argument that – well the planet was going to warm anyway, we’re just making it happen sooner – no biggie, sounds very foolish to me.

You know the sun is going to explode in another billion years – shouldn’t we be funding NASA more heavily so we have an exit strategy?

Precisely when global warming occurs and how it effects human life is the critical question. The whole point of this blog is that human activity is accelerating global warming which will have a severe impact on the survival of the human race IN THE COMING CENTURY.

And this blog has argued persuasively that we need to deploy our current technologies immediately to at the very least postpone the certain tragic consequences of greater than 400 ppm atmospheric carbon in this century.

If, as you seem to argue, all we are doing is postponing the natural warming of the planet a few generations, then I’d say we are accomplishing something monumental to the preservation of human life.

The more time we have to adapt to climate changes, the greater chances we have to prevent the catastrophic consequences of these changes. Ultimately, we will have to adapt or learn to control our climate as you seem to agree. But timing is EVERYTHING when it comes to survival.

Okay, setting aside my earlier post – it is clear that you guys could use a more conservative person to discuss these issues with – it looks like nobody else wants to disagree or challenge your ideas.

But I must first agree with one thing – I have always thought that Charles Krauthammer was a tool – Rush Limbaugh is an ass – Sean Hannity is a religious nut job – and don’t even get me started on those two crazy blonde bitches who I always get confused – laura Ingram and what is her fucking name – anyway.

Guys – don’t you think “Global Warming” is the single most important problem facing the planet – a little hyperbole maybe?

I know one of you is old enough to remember MAD and Reagan and the arms race and the fact that the Soviet Union was ready willing and able to conquer Europe at a moments notice.

As for getting things right and wrong – don’t you think right and wrong have a “moral” connotation to them? I like to think that it is more about getting things correct and incorrect. Somebody calls me wrong, and I start to worry about whether or not they are going to start singing praises to allah and try to cut my head off.

Seriously guys – we can solve all the problems of the world, right here in this blog, but not until both sides stop using language that is designed entirely to insense the opposition to irrationality and motivate your fellow believers to action.

So guys, I am here to challenge your ideas, and maybe see the other side of the global warming debate – which has never been a debate about the existence of global warming (that canard is for people who can’t think for themsleves) but is a debate about the global allocation of resources. Who has them, who uses them, and who will benefit from them.

Whats scary about all this – is that you might just discover that you are being manipulated yourselves.