Hey, Wow, you are attacking the joke solution that people like you came up with to make a buck and head off pollution fees like a straight carbon tax.

By saying that carbon credits don't work, that leads to one of to versions of the same thing, charging for the right to pollution and emit carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, and mercury compounds.

Of course, as carbon is the dominant one, and the one that is being burned when all the others are produced, a carbon tax, or carbon caps with auctions, are the solution.

What I find odd is that the solution that people who are afraid that limiting carbon emissions will be too expense go for carbon caps. The problem is that this leads to a lot of uncertainty on the cost of carbon pollution. A carbon tax will have a known cost and a defined future price with no uncertainty, and if the tax doesn't limit emission immediately to the leave sought, the tax won't be instantly increased as it would with a carbon cap system.

Given how small the reduction in oil consumption in the US and in the world even after the price of oil has increased by a factor of four in just five years, its clear that a carbon cap coupled with a booming economy could result in the price of carbon under a cap system to rise dramatically and unpredictably.

McCain wants a carbon cap.

Al Gore called for a carbon tax.