Very important voice in the babel grabel.....of quick fix/ feels good dumming up.......Info not readily available in the MSM....with links....truly a no brainer to those with a brain.

[Full disclosure: The author is a member of the NewsTrust team, but I don't believe that has influenced my review of this blog post.] This appears to be a superb, and uniquely accessible, analysis of cap and trade strategies to decrease global warming. It provided information and evidence in a style I found easy to follow, as a person with very little knowledge on this topic.

That this topic is controversial is a given. That it is so complex is a direct by-product of using politics to solve social problems. The "solutions" that result from political machinations too often do little to actually alleviate the problems they are supposed to address. But the solutions are so convoluted that you need a diagram to follow the action. This story provides the diagram.

I enjoyed reading this article. The author did a fantastic job presenting the facts and supporting the argument that climate change is important to us all....

This must-read article shows how cap and trade schemes are inherently biased against the poor and powerless, primarily Southern Hemisphere indigenous peoples, but also any locals near mining and oil exploitation sites. Establishment politicos and industrialists seem pre-determined against the alternative, a carbon tax, in spite of vocal opponents of cap and trade within EPA and the CBO. There is reference to EU and UN cap and trade programs, but no representatives quoted to explain their supportive position. The author provides links to authoritative sources backing her points. I was left wishing the article were longer and more detailed.

Not bad, but not as good as it could be. Too much politics and not enough science.

This post does a good job of showing the difference between political expediency and effective policies. Cap and trade sounds good. It lets politicians look like they're doing something without hurting their powerful corporate pals. But it doesn't, as this story posits, actually solve the problem. And, as the UN notes, those least able to bear the consequences--and, sadly enough, least responsible for the problem--will suffer the most.

I was with it until it quoted James Inhofe, an irrational anti-science fool in the Senate. Otherwise this article presents interesting considerations that strongly favor a carbon tax. One probably has to read all the linked references to judge how good the supporting studies and data are.

One good point in this otherwise lame piece: government solutions almost always hurt the poor and powerless that they are trying to help. Large corporations can afford to draft subtle strategies to maximize their benefit, but the average citizen has to fend for her/himself. A free market approach is much more egalitarian. But before any solutions are attempted, we need much better understanding of the influences on climate variability. I am not convinced that man-made CO2 is more than a minor component. If it were so important the 'average' global temperature would travel lock-step with CO2 levels, which clearly it has not.

its just okay