The comparison with capping Ozone has been widely shown foolish – carbon has impossibly higher technological needs!

I like what is happening with the “deadly silence” on this foolish idea overall.

I think you rightly identify the very serious problem of the Left thinking that cap-and-trade is a scheme invented by The Street. See my post here (http://climatechange.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/05/20/the-facts-of-cap-and-trade/) in which I look at the facts of cap-and-trade. This includes an exchange with a writer for Annie Leonard’s popular – and misguided – video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade.” Nat Keohane’s video has the facts. So do you.

How would a carbon tax set a limit on total carbon pollution? The aim is to stop climate change, like the aim under Montreal Protocol was to close the Ozone hole.

Many support this approach (instead of a casino-like commodity market) to progressively discourage use of dirty fuels, improve national security, and to allow revenue to be used as a “public good” for:

a) PAYING TAX REFUNDS FOR ALLOCATED CONSUMPTION CREDITS (using established tax refund tools) to USA citizens and legal residents who file income tax returns (or for those who receive social security benefits);

b) FUNDING CLEAN ENERGY RESEARCH, and

c) PAYING DOWN the National Debt.

But I do title the list “Here’s five pollutants we already reduced using cap-and-trade”.

..and I include the mushy real life details in the body like “SO2 emissions from the power sector decreased from 16 million tons in 1990 to 10 million tons in 2005, and now a 50% reduction has been achieved in the 20 years of the program”.

They voted against almost every idea in these bills multiple times since 1993.

Here’s all the environment roll call votes 1993-2008 you can sift through if you don’t believe me:

http://www.matternetwork.com/2008/9/mccains-50-votes-against-clean.cfm

It took 6 to 8 times to get the production tax credits passed (by being snuck into Bush bank bailout), the Renewable Energy Standard has been filibustered by them when out of power at least 6 times. It never gets introduced when they are IN power.

As to the urgency. Just as you and I believe scientific evidence in every other field, from engineers who make bridges stay up, to develop cancer cures, to do the theory and see it works to build and orbit space shuttles, so I believe scientists when they say that this has become EXTREMELY urgent.

There was less pushback on Ozone only because refrigerant industry was not the most powerful and profitable industry on the planet, and it was not going to put them out of business.

Each one of the previous Cap and Trade implementations was done slowly and incrementally with if I am not mistaken considerable debate and with factored in long term implementation schemes. In fact if you look closely at the data you will probably find that the results of the implementations above most likely far exceed the original expectations. Most of the cap and trade ideas now (IMHO) are rushed and factored in as one big package accepted as a take or leave it from the politicians and typically presented in the approach that we don’t have time and the earth will die etc. etc if we don’t implement all of it now. If Congress would incrementally bring the items in front of the public and pass them as such with similar incremental implementation periods I believe they would be accepted. In fact some of the more intelligent Republicans have suggested such an incremental approach on each item but been shot down. If this approach was taken you would probably not have the polarizing approach that the debate over health care had with its all or nothing debate and large nature of things. 20 year programs as you note have been shown to work and the earth has been shown over that time as a very healing able planet, why is not congress mirroring that approach now I ask you???

It would be so much easier if people didn’t think of it as such as foreign, unproven, and European?? concept.

We’ve done it. It works. Let’s keep saying that.

Great article. Thanks!