If you start with the assumption that a healthy economy is a growth-oriented economy, I suppose your argument holds some validity. What I don't see in this essay is any recognition that it is that growth-orientation that has created the problem. It really makes this no different than Al Gore's suggestion that green can be a growth industry.

This video might enlighten somewhat http://www.sott.net/articles/show/183017-Partnered-with-Gore-in-his-Cap-...

"Productive wind is only available in a limited number of states and their regions..."

The best wind resources are located offshore of both coasts, in close proximity to major load centers.

I see shaman has already pretty much made my point

But the resulting drop in production, and international competitiveness, may well damage or destroy the recovering economy after this recession comes to an end. That too is a risk that should be protected against.

It seems to me that your entire argument is based on the false premise that the current economy is going to recover and that it should be protected at all costs. Furthermore that it is less expensive to maintain BAU than it is to change our lifestyles.

I realize that I will probably be held to account as a doomsayer when I suggest that there is growing evidence from multiple fronts that the current system is not sustainable. It is perfectly plausible that the social and economic cost for transitioning to alternative sources of energy to maintain BAU will cause the system to collapse even faster.

All the more reason to use our resources more wisely and invest heavily in a completely new paradigm.
I will readily admit that I have no idea what that new paradigm will look like but I will bet my last dollar that it will not look like BAU.

It is the maintaining of BAU that is utterly beyond our current economic means especially if we look at the global economy from an ecological viewpoint, the sooner we figure this into our accounting practices the sooner we stop digging the hole we are in now.

There will certainly be costs if we don't, the least of which may turn out to be economic.

I suspect that if new plants are shut down, the old ones will be kept online, because why shut down the cash-cow?

I'm all in favor of an absolute moratorium on new coal-powered plants until they can be built with carbon capture. And if they cannot be built with carbon capture because it's too expensive, they should not be built at all. Climate change is serious and the discussion on whether CO2 has anything to do with is over, at least among climatologists.

Another thing is that there's a lot of slack (or waste) in the system, and that's because electricity is too cheap. There are multiple ways to reduce electricity use without losing the benefits (ban wasteful equipment, functions and behaviour, build smart grids), and these are all cheaper than building new power plants.

Posters who watch too much TV are likely aware of the Olberman/O'Reilly feud. Keith Olberman frequently labels "the clown Billo" - "Worst Person in the World". Billo tries to ignore Keith but recently responded with a claim that GE is hoping to make big bucks from Cap and Trade.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/04/23/oreilly-claims-corrupt...

There is an implicit assumption in the cap and trade proposal, it is that by making certain activities more expensive there will follow new technological breakthroughs to compensate for the cost.

This is especially pernicious in the case of carbon dioxide since the example of sulfur dioxide is used as a parallel model, implying equal success.

There is one huge difference, however. The technology to eliminate sulfur was well-known and easily retrofitted to existing power plants. So a purely economic incentive could be made to work. So would have imposing fixed limits as was done with auto emissions. Forcing behavior can be done using money or regulation, it's just a case of how the government wants to apportion the costs.

In the case of carbon there are no viable capture technologies. Imposing economic constraints doesn't ensure that any will be forthcoming, either. You can encourage scientific research, but you can't assume you will get results. We have been battling cancer for decades and the big breakthroughs have not emerged. Science is difficult and the time between major discoveries is long.

It is wishful thinking to expect that because emissions become more expensive a technological fix will emerge. It is not wishful thinking to impose conservation measures, not only on producers, but on consumers as well. For example a tax on household electric items proportional to their power consumption. If a plasma TV had a $5K tax on it, people would by LCD sets instead.

Almost all economists and those who play them on TV are promoting a return to growth capitalism as quickly as possible. They can't envision any other type of economic and social organization. In a finite world continuous growth models are a mathematical impossibility. Cap and trade is trying to get off cheaply from a political point of view. "We impose the cap, now you figure out the solutions".

We need bolder ideas than this.

These types of schemes make the greatest effort to use the power of the free market, but because it requires buy in from industry to implement, they often protest these plans the loudest.

It's not unusual for industry to exagerate the cost of these plans by a factor of 10.

There is another potential impact of a reduction in the use of Carbon Dioxide that is rarely considered. Many plants, including many food plants respond to increases in CO2 by increasing their growth rates and yield. It is important to remember that the carbon content of all plants (and US) is ALL sourced from the CO2 in the air. In effect, we are all MADE OF CO2. A recent very good paper on the subject of increased plant yields vs. CO2 can be found at the following URL:

http://soyface.illinois.edu/experiment.htm

Basically, they did a series of test (over several years) with many varieties of Soy and Corn of the effect of increasing CO2 from ambient (~390ppm) to 550ppm with a series of pipes and monitors. The increase in CO2 to 550ppm gave rise to an average of 17% increase in yield for both Soy AND Corn AND a reduction in water usage. Basically, the plants used water more efficiently as the CO2 increased and become more drought resistant. It is important to note that these results were NOT produced by genetically engineering the plants to increase their yields as a function of CO2, they used existing varieties. So I would posit that these are conservative yields. Also, if the world does warm (mostly in Northern latitudes as a result of CO2 increases (not convinced of that yet), addition farmland would be available in Northern (and southern) areas of the world for farming, e.g. northern Canada, Siberia and Argentina.

As the world population increases, higher plant yields with lower water usage (for "free") would be a significant compensation in exchange for the supposed problems of a warmer world.

Something worth thinking about.

IWylie

Resource limitations will eventually achieve the same sort of price hikes and energy shortages you speak of, particularly as we come to rely more on coal and natural gas to offset dwindling petroleum resources, mainly in the push to electrify the world's transportation system, but also in the proposal here and abroad to gasify or liquefy coal reserves and the expansion of Dutch-Royal Shell's gas-to-liquids technology, increasing the amount of natural gas based gasoline in our fuel mix. What's more, it has come to light that global recoverable coal reserves may be far less than was originally predicted. While our world is becoming more energy efficient, more and more people will place a strain on what is fundamentally a finite resource.

I feel, that without both a reduction in per capita energy consumption to maintain a first-world standard of living coupled with a dramatic increase in renewable energy production, we will begin to see severe and permanent fuel price increases. We need renewable, not just as a matter of climate protection, but to diversify our energy mix and stabilize energy prices. Though prices will most likely increase even in the most optimistic scenarios, we will not be subject to the price instability inherent in a market where demand will most likely outpace supply in 15 or 20 years.

I feel, given the potential severity of both the climate crisis and the energy crisis, it's better to begin our work now where we have some control over the outcome.

I think carbon taxes are a better system, especially since cap and trade doesn't work when the market is highly volatile, like we're currently experiencing. One day the permits will cost $100, the next $12. Businesses can't make proper plans with that kind of volatility.

Cap and trade exists as a possibility in most people's minds only because they still think BAU will return. It will take people some time to realize that the system isn't working and couldn't work. For comparison, see how long it took for people to realize that about the "hydrogen economy," which a little math and less wishful thinking would have made clear before spending all that money and wasting all that time.

No matter. I've generally withdrawn from the whole discussion on cap and trade vs. carbon taxes. Any regime implemented in the next two years will be promptly ripped out once oil gets expensive. For instance, by my calculations a $50/ton carbon tax is like adding $17.35 to a barrel of oil. What appetite will there be for any sort of higher priced carbon once oil is (relatively) consistently at $100 per barrel? It will already be much higher than any proposals on the table now and the economy will be reeling.

I notice this article in the press today:

Gas 'a big winner' if US cap-and-trade passes: Caruso

The natural gas industry will emerge as a major winner in the next two decades if US President Barack Obama succeeds in pushing through cap-and-trade emissions legislation, a former US government energy official said Tuesday.

"Coal now accounts for roughly 50% of electrical power (in the US)," said Guy Caruso, former head of the US Energy Information Administration, at CWC's Americas LNG conference in New Orleans. "If a (cap and trade) bill passes, coal will fall to below 40%."

Despite Obama's push for increased use of renewable energy, much of that slack would have to be taken up by gas-based generation or nuclear power, since renewables would likely continue to have a relatively small share of the
market, said Caruso, who is now senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The problem I see with gas is that at the current price of something over $3 mcf, production is likely to decline greatly. I the price rises to the $8 mcf range, we are likely to see plenty of gas, but the price of electricity from such gas will be far higher than current coal prices. It seems like if one puts in a cap and trade program at a high enough level that natural gas comes out ahead, the cost to the consumer will be quite high, and this will have a very negative impact on the economy.

I think we have to understand that our previous "lifestyle" is not realistic. It was the lifestyle of "spend now" and then slap the bill to the future generations. If that is what everyone wants then fine -- go ahead. I would prefer we be more responsible and clean up after ourselves. We are talking mountain top mining, water pollution for big agriculture, etc... All of that "growth" only makes us fatter but not smarter.

If your electril bill is $1000/month, then you really have problem -- for a lot of families with a $100/month bill, the problem is not that bad, even if the cost of electricity goes up by 3x -- they will make some cut back so that their bill won't be 3x. We really have to make some sacrifice here, no doubt about that. We have to learn not building more McMansions -- watering the lawn like our parents used to --- etc...
If dumping CO2 is like dumping toxic junks into the river, then why not stopping it until companies can clean themself up?

Screaming about the huge cost rise and the jobs loss will instill fear into the population. That is the purpose of those that doing well in the old lifestyle. For most of Americans, many real jobs had already been transfered oversea even during the "cheap" energy days. More will follow for that 10% extra profit. We will lose some gain some. For those countries which don't like to pay for this cleanup -- we will have a CO2 tax on their imports and use it to fight GW effects in our country.

Is it possible that Jevons paradox does not apply to current energy production scenarios? Assuming that we are past the apex of fossil fuel production, I would expect the cost of energy to increase and hopefully be inversely proportional to increased effieciency.

I think the biggest risk is that a system gets set up, and then a new administration comes in and dismantles it, rendering the whole thing suddenly worthless. This is what we see in energy policy, with major policy shifts every couple of years. The same could happen with a cap and trade system.

I don't recall who said it, but the comment was that the biggest problem in cap and trade is that you are trying to put a value on something that has no tangible value. Is that sustainable in the long run? (This certainly isn't meant to imply that I am against limiting carbon emissions; I would just go about it differently).

The 'risk' of cap and trade seems to be that the price of carbon will be too expensive for Missouri, which enjoys the lowest price of electricity in the country but also has a below average household income. Missouri also has no energy resources to develop(except biomass and a small bit of wind, no oil or gas).

Naturally, pandering Missouri politicians will want to do the popular thing and ignore the EPA, the Supreme Court and all those silly climate scientists.
After all, the state motto is
"The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law."
and it is hard to see how raising prices will help the average man.

But beggars can't be choosers.

I doubt that Missourians wept for California voters when gas prices skyrocketed(causing California to lead the nation in efficiency).

Most of the electricity is produced by a 1Gwe nuke at Callaway, a giant 2.5 Gwe coal plant(is it possible to convert to nuke?) and six 1 GWe coal plants, the rest is small stuff better as cogen NG, biomass or wind.

http://www.dnr.missouri.gov/energy/utilities/ff_util_pp_disclosure.htm

What they should do is to adopt very tough energy conservation standards and here cap and trade could help by providing money for drastically reducing electricity consumption.

I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.
Harry S. Truman

One point-- the EPA says that a ton of utility coal produces 4290 pounds of CO2(2.1 tons), not 6000 pounds(3 tons).

http://www.epa.gov/appdstar/pdf/brochure.pdf

I notice Drumbeat has an article today that gives an EPA estimate of the financial impact of Cap and Trade. I would expect that they would attempt to put out as rosy a picture as possible, so I would take their estimate as a floor, not a ceiling.

Last Wednesday, Jackson cited new EPA models showing that a cap-and-trade program will most likely have only a modest impact on American families--increasing annual spending by less than $150. Officials arrived at this estimate, she said, by assuming that 40 percent of the money raised by selling emissions credits would be passed back to Americans. Congress, however, has yet to decide what it will do with that money.

Republicans, for their part, insist the costs would be much higher, perhaps as much as several thousand dollars per family. In most of their estimates, they assume that consumers will get no rebates or support at all, which congressional aides say is unlikely.

If 40% of the money raised by selling emission credits goes back to Americans, that leaves 60% that ends up somewhere else. The availability of this money makes Cap and Trade very appealing to those selling services that would qualify under Cap and Trade. If the federal government finally does decide it has to achieve a lower deficit, the existence of this money (or the 40% that might go back to Americans) is a convenient potential source of funds.

It bears pointing out that there is a tacit presumption here that "the way we currently do things" is the status quo.

The status quo is the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is up to those who wish permission to experiment with increasing that amount to levels far beyond those experienced during human history to establish what the risks are, and that the benefits justify the risks.

Also, with respect to the intellectually lazy but quite common use of the Jevons paradox, recall Jevons argument, from the source linked above:

But no one must suppose that coal thus saved is spared – it is only saved from one use to be employed in others, and the profits gained soon lead to extended employment in many new forms.

The dynamic context in which Jevons paradox occurs is not one in which the increase in efficiency is partly offsetting an increase in cost per unit of a fuel, but one in which the supply conditions for the fuel are stable, so that declining consumption in one use allows other uses to step in.

So assume away cap and auction, and efficiency not as likely as we might think to help offset the costs of cap and auction. But if we assume away cap and auction, there are no costs to be offset.

Nothing about DSM? A smart grid could do a lot to proof customers against price shocks, assuming we can fortify the thing against hackers.

EB has a new one up this morning: Smart Grid - "Enabler of the New Energy Economy"

Change is Coming. This is all about to change, spurred by the push to use more renewable energy and implement energy efficiencies, and with help from billions in the Economic Stimulus package. Utilities are now poised to begin a massive upgrade of electric meters and the electricity transmission and distribution grid, with a number of technologies collectively referred to as the "Smart Grid". While this upgrade is expected to cost billions of dollars to implement nationwide, it will save even more.

With cap and trade you introduce a commodity, where supply is not flexible at all. With crude oil where short term flexibility is low, we see that prices vary a lot which makes planning a very difficult task. Cap and trade of CO2 emissions is worse. Although the idea sounds good that market forces will automatically lead to a reduction of emissons where it is the least expensive - in reality it will not work smoothly. Currently European emission rights are almost worthless. In times of economic growth prices will go up dramatically. Either business will be hurt be quite expensive emission rights or governments will create additional emission rights and hence make the whole system worthless.
At the same time emission rights can be received for supporting CO2 saving projects in other countries. But it is very hard to judge if the hydro power station in China really is decreasing the emission by shutting down a coal fired power plant or if it is just adding less emission than a coal fired power station that might have been built at its place or even worse if the hydro power station would have been built anyway.

A simple CO2 tax would be a lot easier to handle. Costs for emission could easily be calculated in advance and climate friendly projects could be subsidized if they do not have other drawbacks like deforestation.

It is hard to cope with the current markets for commodities - why create additional markets for artificial commodities?

We don't need $50 / tonne or anything like it as long as we are prepared to be grown-up about nuclear energy.

A carbon price of $20/tonne CO2 would be more than enough to make dirty coal uncompetitive with new-build nuclear, with only a modest effect on the cost of electricity to consumers. Private investment to build new nuclear capacity would easily be raised as long as investors could be convinced that the carbon price would be maintained for decades to come. Some renewables - onshore wind, and solar thermal in deserts - might ber competitive with nuclear, but would need an HVDC grid to exploit their potential

The debate on the relative merits/demerits of carbon trading is just getting revved up in the USA now that you have a federal government which is slightly less in the troglodyte class.
In Australia we have been going through this silly time wasting exercise for 2 years or more.The bar has been set too low by our own troglodyte government and still industry is whining and lobbying(effectively) for exemption from the system.

It is possible that a carbon tax is a more transparent and effective means of tackling the problem via the financial system.However,this system as we know it appears to be in it's death throes in spite of desperate efforts at resuscitation.

But time is a-wasting.We need to Kill Coal ASAP.This is going to take positive action by governments to mobilize industry to build non-polluting alternatives - solar,wind,geothermal and nuclear.When these are in place the coal industry can be closed down by regulation,not persuasion.

Remember that cap-and-trade schemes require CO2 cuts of around 1-3% a year which should force manageable rates of innovation. The fact that the CO2 spot price will fluctuate like everything else is nothing new though perhaps a floor price of $20 a tonne should be set. That means petrol should go up a minimum of 5c/L or 19c/US gall and coal fired electricity 2c a kwh. This is based on 1 kg of coal producing 2.4 kg of CO2, not 3.0 as suggested.

Then you have all those billions of dollars of new revenue to fund green tech like solar thermal, wind farms and new transmission. Of course the government could waste it on clean coal 'research' or ethanol subsidies. They could let some industries off the hook or allow excessive use of offsets. In Europe some industries avoid up to 50% of CO2 cuts using approved but unverifiable offsets which undermines the whole exercise. Note those bogus offsets would become bogus tax deductions under carbon tax.

Even if there was no AGW there is a probably a case for imposed carbon pricing to help prepare for FF depletion. This way when you drive or fly or use coal fired electricity you are helping pay for its replacement.

Edit:
Australia exports about 4X bituminous coal as used domestically. I think it should be included in the domestic cap if the import customer refuses to take carbon cuts at home. Export coal would go up in price by the CO2 equivalent. So if the CO2 price was $A22 then X 2.4 each tonne of coal produces $50 of CO2. The export price might then be
$150 fob + $50 carbon charges = $200 per tonne.

The objective of the exercise is to leave carbon in the ground. The only sensible way to achieve that is to tax or cap carbon as it comes out of the ground. Which is also the easiest way to do it. Trying to tax/cap emissions is complex and is just plain silly in a world where huge amounts of carbon cycles in and out of the atmosphere all the time. So it is interesting to consider the Australian government plan: half-hearted emissions trading scheme, plus furiously building new infrastructure to make it easy to export coal to other countries, which will have the responsibility of implementing an ETS so that they don't actually burn it.

Many points here to address;

there are costs to the required changes in lifestyle that a reduction in carbon dioxide production will require

Is this not The Oil Drum?? Don't we know extensive and dramatic lifestyle changes are coming?? It's truly hard to believe a contributor would make such a statement...

Jevons Paradox will tell you that “improving energy efficiency increases energy consumption.” So that the savings in power required are unlikely to be realized.

Jevons Paradox does not hold when there is steady downward pressure on supply (as in incrementally fewer carbon credits allocated). Hence not only would there be no increase in energy consumption, it is unlikely that the energy consumption would remain steady.

The Energy Summit in Columbia last week allowed some of the utility companies to spell out the levels of cost that will be incurred if cap and trade legislation is enacted

It's funny how oil company claims are scrutinized at this site, though some contributors will swallow anything a coal-burning utility would say.

without a perceived increase in demand, it is harder to justify a new investment in plant when the old coal plant is still producing at a relatively low cost.

That's because cap and trade has not been implemented yet. When it *is* implemented, carbon based energy production will increase in costs to the point that cleaner generation investment will more than break even x years in the future.

Productive wind is only available in a limited number of states

Limited?? From those with "Good" or higher wind resources, we have 44 States;

California
Oregon
Washington
Alaska
Idaho
Nevada
New Mexico
Arizona
Utah
Colorado
Wyoming
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
Texas
Iowa
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Illinois
Michigan
Ohio
Illinois
Louisiana
Mississippi
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
South Carolina
North Carolina
West Virginia
Virginia
Pennsylvania
New York
Vermont
New Hampshire
Maryland
Delaware
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Maine

On top of that, you are ignoring solar potential, and geothermal;

Mandating that the older suppliers of power close, before the new plants to replace them are installed will have significant consequences to the available jobs that can be supported

No one is suggesting any such thing; this is a complete strawman.

Because the purchase of the allocation for the carbon dioxide they do admit will also bring additional cost. As noted at the Energy Summit a price of $50 per ton of carbon allocation would likely double electric bills in Missouri.

And if fees from cap and trade are rebated equally to residents, then only the ones who are wasteful will feel the pinch. Rightly so, as far as I'm concerned.

In much the same way as Secretary Chu recognized at the EIA Conference that increases in the cost of oil contributed to the severity of the recession, one can equally imagine that a similar effect will be felt with an equivalent rise in the cost of electricity.

Again, this ignores the positive feedback associated with the rebate of fees. The only ones feeling this 'effect' would be those who were wasteful.

The current path forward, with a hesitation in construction of new power plants holds the risk that the United States will not have the power that it needs in the future to match industrial and domestic demands.

Is this not The Oil Drum?? Are you suggesting continuing BAU growth economics? Irony meter pegs and explodes; readers are injured by shards of detritus. Odd how this is so at odds with Powerdown...

But the resulting drop in production, and international competitiveness, may well damage or destroy the recovering economy after this recession comes to an end.

More BAU fearmongering. Getting rid of wasteful energy practices will only make the country more resilient. But of course, if we have it your way, and build many more coal plants....

the possibility that carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases are responsible for the rise in global temperatures

Human-caused climate change is not a "possibility" anymore than peak oil is a possibility. That is, there is uncertainty about exactly how or when or what, but there's not uncertainty about if. Oil is finite, and human action is harming the environment and thus ourselves.

There's no uncertainty about either of those things being true. Exact dates and exact effects and exactly what to do to mitigate these effects, we can argue about all that. But we can't argue that these are real problems which are going to hurt us severely if we do nothing to stop them.

Talking about the relative costs of acting or not acting is a nonsense, since we have no choice but to act. It's like talking about the costs of levees in New Orleans, or earthquake-proofing buildings in Japan, or drought-proofing homes in the desert. Bad stuff is going to happen. We can prevent it happening, and we can protect against its effects, but bad stuff is going to happen.

We can spend money, or we can just die.

Anyhow, what with fossil fuels being finite, even if burning coal gave us vitamin C and burning oil did nothing nastier than make pretty girls smile, someday we'd have to stop. So we're going to have to pay for changes whether there is global warming or not.

I guess the reason that many peak oilers find it difficult to believe in human-caused climate change is that if there is none, then demand for oil stays high, so it's good to invest in it, you can make a bundle from oil futures. Whereas if you believe in human-caused climate change, then well we decide to stop burning stuff, demand for oil drops, and oops, the market just busted and you're broke.

I'm sorry if reality hurts your investment, but that's capitalism, you win some, you lose some. The world's changing. Sorry. My feelings on that are summed up by Danny Devito here. A growing share of a declining market is economic death. Goodbye Saudis, goodbye Heading Out and the rest.

The article begins with a fiction. As it's based on nonsense, the rest can safely be ignored, just as if he'd begun with "since the Earth is flat -" Now, if only there were a button to flag an article as inappropriate...

However, in that discussion, there is rarely any mention of possible negative consequences to mitigating against increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Excellent idea to investigate the costs of one of the main mitigation projects. How about doing another study/analysis on the costs and benefits of mitigation versus adaptation?

As much as I'm completely aware of global warming and where it's headed if no action is taken, as well as the downward slide of post peak oil, I can't see the need for cap and trade.

Isn't it enough to provide big tax incentives for the manufacture and deployment of renewable energy, low interest loans and cheap govt. land, with the idea that as more is deployed less carbon will be emitted? Afterall, renewable energy needs to be reasonably cost effective, and if we prop it up with some artificial system to insist on it over fossil fuels, couldn't that raise the cost of energy to a point where it would possibly have a recessionary effect?

The only simple and efficient system for capping CO2 emissions that I know about is taxation at the carbon source. Slap, ten cents, a dollar or whatever on every kg of carbon liften thru a well or dug out of the ground and then let the market economy sort out all the details. And to make it symmetrical give the same ammount per kg to people that inject captured CO2 or buries carbon in any other way.

I hope nations with fossil fuels get realy greedy and taxe the industry heavily and hopefully invest the taxation money in long lived assets instead of having a giant subsidiary party. I do however only know about one nation that have taken it somewhat cool with spending the loot, Norway.

Its hard to get ideal solutions implemented. ;-)

Refreshing. A rational risk assessment in a sea of irrational Global Warming hysteria. An interesting reality jumps out when you study Mann's bristlecone proxy data and the infamous "hockey stick" graphic his process produces. The reality the tree ring data and Mann's graphic reveal is that nothing has done more to "GREEN" the planet in the past few decades than elevated levels of CO2 in the presence of mild sun-driven warming. That's the natural science. In the face of huge volumes of data and studies to the contrary, political science has twisted this reality in a truly breath-taking Orwellian manner into 1) warming similar to the Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Period is bad, 2) warming is caused by an infinitesimal trace gas essential to life supporting photosynthesis, 3) human's 3% annual contribution to a CO2 starved biosphere is putting the planet at some sort of risk. Just how high would fuel bills have to be elevated by Cap Tax to cut world hydrocarbon output by 1/3, or net 1%? What would such a reduction do to accumulations of CO2? That's right, it's quite literally in the noise, if you know anything about control theory. The cost is off the page. Like this recession? Then just wait for Cap&Tax. All of this then begs the question, “If humans can’t reasonably be expected to control the production of CO2, how they can possibly be responsible for the, as yet unproven, horrors of Global Warming?" The answer is, "they cannot and are not responsible." The true proxy is the political science myth of Global Warming, foisted on a scientifically illiterate public as a distracting red herring to deal with the operational and economic exigencies of permanently declining oil production worldwide without actually revealing or discussing in the open media the most critical national security issue of our time. Doubt this assertion? Then just read all of the IPCC technical reports together with the most recent IEA oil production forecast. Too hard and time consuming? Okay, then just relax and believe the propaganda.

An Affordable Salvation
Paul Krugman, NY Time's economist, tackles some objections to Cap & Trade:

The 2008 election ended the reign of junk science in our nation’s capital, and the chances of meaningful action on climate change, probably through a cap-and-trade system on emissions, have risen sharply. But the opponents of action claim that limiting emissions would have devastating effects on the U.S. economy. So it’s important to understand that just as denials that climate change is happening are junk science, predictions of economic disaster if we try to do anything about climate change are junk economics.

Yes, limiting emissions would have its costs. As a card-carrying economist, I cringe when “green economy” enthusiasts insist that protecting the environment would be all gain, no pain.

But the best available estimates suggest that the costs of an emissions-limitation program would be modest, as long as it’s implemented gradually. And committing ourselves now might actually help the economy recover from its current slump.

But I think Paul oversimplifies and underestimates the potential strength of opposition here in the U.S. Consider this number: 41% of people polled recently by Gallup think the media has exaggerated the impact of climate change. The vehemence of the opposition is striking anytime it comes up for discussion in the news.

It's clear that "global warming" has become a religious argument, although the debate always has a pseudo-scientific veneer - by this I mean it's the same part of the brain that's engaged by the topic as religion, where a person's belief structure (i.e. "faith-based") is engaged, rather than a clear and solid science-based understanding, where everyone can look at the evidence and agree on the meaning of the data.

The elephant in the living room is the fact that, to accomplish its goals, both the carbon-tax and cap & trade proposals will make FF-based energy more expensive - possibly a lot more expensive - and this is supposed to motivate both great improvements in efficiency / conservation and investment in alternative non-carbon energy sources. I think most U.S. citizens are still oblivious to this; "cap & trade" and "carbon tax" are still in the realm of esoteric economic discussions that don't impact them directly - still over the horizon.

But when they see an electric bill that's a punch in the gut, and the major portion of that increase is attributed to "your contribution to slow / halt global warming" (which they don't believe is happening anyway, and is a hoax or scam to separate them from their hard-earned money) there will be hell to pay.

When, furthermore, they learn that we've imposed this pain and expense on ourselves, but that China and India have not (or have, in a far more limited way), and that unilateral (U.S. & Europe) imposition of caps on carbon emissions won't make much of a dent in the global total of emissions, there will be open revolt. If we remain a democratic society, this will become a huge political battle and the global-warming "alarmists" - anyone supporting a tax or cap & trade - will be a target. Even "green" citizens are likely to revolt when they see the price tag.

I just have a hard time seeing this working out well. I think it's unlikely that CO2 emissions will decrease over the next few decades and we will simply have to deal with the consequences.

Dick Lawrence