So you're right that the political sides on GHG policy aren't D vs. R.  Their wealth transfer recipients vs. wealth transfer losers.  As currently framed, that basically means coal and manufacturing regions vs. everyone else.  But it doesn't have to be that way, especially if we contemplate policies that incentivize carbon reduction without presuming that our society will work without energy-intensive manufactured goods.  After all, CO2 is a global pollutant - shipping energy intensive manufacturing elsewhere ain't the solution, unless the "elsewhere" we ship it to is a place that has less CO2-intensive energy sources.

Just to clarify...When I give you $100 for something that cost you $80 to make the GDP is typically estimated to grow something between $150 and $250 if all of the materials you used to make your thing originated in the US, depending on what the economists posit the GDP "multiplier" is for the good you make.   The simplest way to grow GDP is to blow up bridges and rebuild them.  GDP estimates do not differentiate between investments that add new value, or make us inherantly more productive and investments that might replace existing capital stocks with less productive capital stocks.  That is one reason it is kind of silly that we all use GDP as the magic measure of economic health.

Please appreciate that I'm using GDP here for anything other than a proxy for economic activity.  Use another one if you prefer.  My point is that there are plenty of things we do that grow the economy (however you choose to measure) even while they transfer wealth from one party to another - and therefore, parties on the losing end of economically-beneficial wealth transfers are always prone to framing their personal woes as larger economic ones - and the media falls for it every time. 

Take a non-GDP measure if you prefer.  My life is richer by virute of the fact that I own an iPod instead of a Walkman.  And I don't give a damn that Sony shareholders are worse off in the transaction, even though I can appreciate why - if they had the power to do so - they would have lobbied their regulator to stop those bastards at Apple from crippling the economy.

The electric sector is rife with these failings.  Just about every utility commission in the country compels customers to pay their utilities for the money they lose if they install a more efficient generator, because utilities have done such a good job of conflating the interests of their shareholders and rate payers.  Our GHG debate is being driven by those who cut their teeth in precisely those battles - and so your coal-rich utility stands up and says "we're opposed to GHG legislation because it will raise our customers rates!" and gets away with the suggestion that they are arguing only out of noble self interest, without any follow on consideration of (a) where the proceeds from those carbon emissions payments are going to go, and whether they might provide an offsetting reduction in the cost of a cleaner kWh or (b) why we presume that CO2 emitters will be allowed to shift 100% of their cost of pollution onto their customers backs.  Following both of those threads, it becomes apparent that wealth transfers are not universally painful.  By the same token - and going back to David's post - it makes it clear why the political fractures are where they are.

I look at my neighborhood.  Landlords make the most "profit" when they invest  minimum $ while collecting the maximum rent.  They have little incentive to add insulation, energy efficient water heaters and furnaces, or replace windows.  I'd like to see rental income tax credits to encourage landlords to make such investments.  Another option would be to increase property taxes on non-upgraded rental units (though the cost of that would be passed on to tenants).  As a landlord, I don't get significantly higher rents from units with replacement windows and insulated attics.  (I might get higher rents from visible upgrades like kitchen counters and new bathroom tile)  Non-cosmetic upgrades to my properties feel like "charity" -- I'm doing the right thing and feel good about it, but they reduce my "profit."  Landlords have even less incentive to improve energy efficiency since they usually don't pay the utilities -- the tenant does.

There's something to be said for shifting from income to sales taxes, but it's no panacea (not to mention that the regressivity of that makes it a virtual non-starter politically).  Price only affects behavior at some level; increasing gasoline prices by 10 cents/gallon don't materially change our choice of vehicles.  So the tax only becomes meaningful to reallocate capital to the extent it is sufficient to do so - which will vary by sector, and doesn't have any direct reason to be tied to income taxes, which are set not be the level required to change behavior as much as they are set to match (however inaccurately) government budgetary needs. 

Finally, bear in mind that - per GreenGranny's comment - there are lots of barriers to efficiency that aren't simply matters of price, with the split incentives innate to real estate being only the most visible example.  All the tax-shifting in the world won't matter if the person who pays that tax is not the person who builds the building.

The Green Party has a message that would resonate with a large number of Americans, if only that message had a vehicle. Do you think "the majority" is opposed to nonviolence, justice, grassroots democracy and sustainability - the four cornerstones of Green politics?

The point of this article is that we shouldn't be lazy and vote based on the letter next to someone's name, right? That's all well and good, but it's another form of laziness for the media to focus on two narrow choices and ignore everything else out there.

I think we're best off focusing our energies on the local, and letting it bubble up to the national, when possible. We simply cannot compete with one dollar-one vote so no use wasting all our emotional, psychic and spiritual energy there.