Not sure if you will ever come back here, but exactly which “Scientific Community” accepts AGW as fact. There are more than 30,000 of us who think it is a load of crap. Check out the Oregon Project. There, real scientists (not the economists and politicians you refer to at the United Nations) are all in agreement that:

1. The earth is currently cooling, but has gone through cooling and warming cycles since time began.

2. Any warming that occurred in the 1990′s (its been cooling since 1998) was not caused by CO2 released by man. Man release only 5 % of the CO2 which enters the atmosphere each year and CO2 has 1/10 the impact of WATER (can you say clouds) which are not incorporated into any GW modeling.

3. Even if we assume that GW is occurring and man is causing it, why is that a bad thing. Warmer weather and more CO2 means more food is grown faster in more areas of the world.

Try looking at facts other than those fed to you by the mainstream media. Global warming is where the socialists of old have gone to try to gain control over the world’s econmies. If we institute the “fixes” the GREENS are proposing, millions of the world’s poorest will die since they will not have access to the cheap energy that is needed to improve their quality of life.

Which planet do you live on?

The Global Warming Theory has been accepted by the scientific community for a while now. I appreciate that you point out China as a main polluter and how changing their production methods would make them less competitive towards other countries that pay no attention. On the current international scene, the USA was until a few months ago, one of the rare countries that paid no attention, as the rest of the world agreed to the Kyoto Protocol. Easy to point fingers.

Currently, a well organized Cap and Trade system does exist and tonnes of carbon are traded daily on the international market. The UNFCCC, a United Nation body, is regulating this successful system. Over 100 countries have pledge to reduce their carbon emissions under the Kyoto Protocol and are now legally bound to carbon emission caps. The carbon market is a $60billion industry. It is, by the way, market driven as the price of tones of carbon are based on market forces.

As you mentioned, people need to receive the message to curb their emission. If it is so, then I guess that someone has to send the message. His name is Al Gore and he is trying to make people change their habits. Good for him if he made money while doing it.

1) Is the Earth actually warming? There is some argument to this because there was a time a few years ago when groups were touting global cooling. When weather forecasters can barely forecast what will happen next week, it is difficult to believe climate scientists’ predictions for years from now.

2) If yes to #1, is the global warming man made? Again, many scientists are seeing warming on other planets where man doesn’t influence the environment. They believe it is because of solar activity increasing. This raises questions about man made origins of global warming.

3) If yes to #1 and #2, could man made global warming be curbed by humans? I just returned from China and have visited other developing countries before. I believe they are some of the worst polluters in the world. Trying to convince them that they need to stop developing as quickly so as to curb their carbon emissions will not be accepted. Therefore, enforcing actions on developed countries only handicaps their economic growth against others who pay no attention.

So, let’s say #1,#2, and #3 are answered “Yes.” How on Earth will this be regulated? Who keeps track of carbon emissions? At what measure? What enforcement should their be? This is a monumental task for any government to take on. Given government’s history at managing projects, it will cost trillions, be very corrupt, and ultimately not do what it is meant to do.

You mention this is a market based solution. I don’t believe this. Cap and trade is not a creation of the market. It would be a creation by the government and enforced by the government on private entities. The market trading is more of a dog and pony show of what is ultimately government planning.

There is also the consideration of those who are trying to enrich themselves by spreading global warming fear. I have a hard time believing people like Al Gore when he would stand to gain riches beyond imagination if things like Cap and Trade take effect. Not to mention the hippocracy with his private jet and humongous carbon emitting estate. In one word, disingenuous.

You mention incentives. Frankly, I think if you want people to curb emissions they must receive the message and enforce it with their purchasing power. The consumer must start this movement, not the government or some international body.

Well thought out post/series.

A revenue neutral carbon tax shift — using revenues to reduce payroll taxes, or as a direct equal payment to households could make a sharply increasing carbon tax politically palatable.

You and your readers may be intereted in the information at the Carbon Tax Center, http://www.carbontax.org, and the Price Carbon Campaign, http://www.pricecarbon.org.