I wonder if thats either he doesn't fully understand the concept the cap part of cap and trade.

...we know he supports a cap an trade system.  It's been on the Grist candidate list for like weeks now.  It's in no way surprisin', nor is it unexpected.  He's always supported a cap and trade system.

Also, his comments 'bout "if I'm wrong" were to illustrate to climate change doubters that if climate change didn't exist, and they enacted legislation anyway, the overall results would still only be positive.  He's sayin' the worst that would happen would be that there was no climate change, but since we end up with cleaner air anyway, so long as they pass legislation, then they should go ahead and pass it.

I don't see how that's doubletalk or wishy-washy in any way, 'specially considerin' that he's tryin' to convince a conservative audience of climate doubters to actually support climate legislation.

...okay, jabalio suppose, hypothetically, that climate change didn't exist and we enacted legislation to stop it anyway.  True there would be some short-term costs, economically speakin', but there would also be benefits to the economy.

If we enacted legislation that cut down on air pollution, there would also likely be a drop in medical conditions associated with air pollution, things like asthma, respiratory problems, cancer, and even some cases of premature death and stillbirths.  Since most populations living in areas near refineries, coal plants, and factories aren't exactly considered to be "upper class", there's a higher chance that taxpayer money will be used to pay for their medical bills.  And since they live near said pollution areas, they're more likely to obtain said medical problems.

Decreases in pollution lead to decreases in medical costs.

It's also been shown that there is a direct correlation between the health of waterways and associated marine life and the amount of pollution in the air.  Increased CO2 levels lead to increased acidification of water, which leads to larger fish die-offs and destruction of valuable wetlands and coral reefs, which most of the world's fishieries rely on.

Increased air pollution leads to decreased stocks of fish and other aquatic wildlife, thus costin' the fishin' industry more.

Increased air pollution has also been shown to lead to greater degredation and acidfication of surrounding soils, especially near point sources like power plants and refineries.  Land becomes less productive.

Increased air pollution leads to less productive land, thus costin' agriculture.

Increased air pollution also effects property values.  Recent polls have shown that among the top reasons that suburban Californians didn't want to move to the inner-cities was the fear of increased pollution.  They also stated that they believed that Califonia's air pollution was effectin' their property values as a whole.  Several California cities also conducted polls amongst potential tourists and prospective businesses that listed pollution as one of their main concerns for stayin' away from certain areas of California.

Air pollution affects property values and tourism.

Also, there are more fatalities in traditional power industries (like coal and gas) than in renewables (even when compared to their relative difference in current size).  There's less instances of work-related accidents and deaths.  If the energy industry were to convert mostly to renewables, then fatalaties and accidents would most likely drop.

There's also less likely chances of contamination of ground water or residential or recreational areas with renewables.  When traditional power sources cause contamination, it usually costs money to fix.

There are just as many economic reasons to limit air pollution and GHGs as their are to keepin' the status quo.  And when the ecological and health-related benefits are added in, it just makes good economic sense to limit it and eventually phase it out all together.

Politicians seem to understand GW even less than most people do.  Which is somewhat understandable, I guess, since most of their time is spent trying to get elected or in justifying their existence afterwards.  They just don't have the luxury of studying such an esoteric issue, and cannot comprehend the fact that GW is real, is imminent, and will make them irrelevant if they don't address the problem now.

Sure, CO2 is a 'natural' gas, and is part of the Earth's atmosphere, and is necessary for plant life to 'breathe.'  But, like anything else, too much of a good thing can be harmful.  If we can't control its production, or regulate its introduction (cap and trade) perhaps we can figure out a way to break it back down into its component parts, carbon (a stable black powder) and oxygen (another gas, necessary for US to breathe).

Des Emery

Yes, Mr. jabailo, I'm talking to you ... why, I'm not entirely certain, it seems no amount of science, logic or reason will sway you.

I'd like to take your "it's just CO2, don't get your panties in a bind" mentality and take it to preposterous extremes to make a point (that you won't get ... whatever). OK, plants need CO2, so it can't be a bad thing, right? Let's say by some freak of nature a giant bubble of pure CO2 forms in the atmosphere and (for reasons I can't fathom) descends on Kent, WA. How you liking CO2 now? What, you can't breath? Are you sure? I mean, the trees love the stuff, right?

Most of the people in Kent are, I'm sure, not pricks, and the CO2 bubble that was suffocating you thankfully dissipates as mysteriously as if formed, just in time to save your sorry attitude ... you will live to lurk in Gristmill another day, yea!

The point I try to make (that you won't get ... whatever) is that even innocuous things like CO2, when out of balance, can become a real problem on a planet that has taken billions of years to create the tenuous equilibriums the support life here. Hell, even O2 becomes dangerous in high concentrations (you're not a smoker are you?). Oh, and water, that wondrous life-giving liquid is another good example ... too much falls from the sky, floods ... drink too much too fast, kills ya (or so I read on the internets). Could too much CO2 be a problem? Even you must admit it is possible (I can call that bubble back at any time, so think hard.).

If a twigg falls in the forest but nobody is there to hear it, it's probably best because there is bound to be cussing.

define "air pollution" as the traditional culprits:  sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and so on.  

But the thing is, we've made wonderful progress in decreasing these things -- through technology such as catalytic converters.

I do not define CO2 as a pollutant that globally gives the Goreans a way to hurt the poor by limiting progress.

You can see the difference right?

We've made some progress in the reduction of some pollution types such as sulfur, but it still causes massive damages and health-related issues even at it's reduced levels.

The thing with CO2 emissions is that they are usually associated with activities that also release other air pollutants, such as sulfur. By reducin' activities that release CO2, we also reduce activities that release other air pollutants.

For example, if we convert over to renewable energy sources to help stop global warming, and begin to shut down coal and oil power plants as a result, not only do we help stop the CO2 emissions, we also stop the other air pollutants.

True, some coal and gas plants have reduced their amount of certain types air pollutants such as sulfur, by a tremendous amount, but even then the amount they still emit can cause massive property damage and health-related issues, 'specially in the long run.

It just makes good economic sense to convert over to cleaner tech.  And the sooner it happens, the more money is saved through less damage caused.

Like McCain said, suppose it doesn't exist...then all we've done is given future generations a cleaner and healthier lifestyle (through reductions of related industry pollutants/practices that went along with GHGs).  And that's very good for the economy.

Sure, get rid of the "pollutants" but don't focus on CO2.   CO2 is harmless.   It does nothing.  Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

Increases in CO2 lead to increased acidification in soil and water.  Even if ya don't believe in global warmin', the link between increased CO2 and increased soil and water degredation has been proven.

Sure, it takes alot more CO2 than sulfur to increase acidification by the same amounts, but we're pumpin' enough CO2 into the atmosphere that it has begun to reach those levels.

And what's worse, unlike sulfur (which is heavier than CO2), it's not only a regional issue, but also a global issue (never mind the climate change factor), since CO2 has a wide dispersion rate before it settles down, especially at the scale we emit it at.

The increase in acidification has already begun to adversely affect fisheries, reef systems, wetlands, and certain agricultural areas.  Thus effectin' the economy.

Massive amounts of CO2 released over a broad range in a relatively short timespan adversely affects the land and water and air quality, global climate change aside.

It's still bad for the economy, 'specially in the long run.

CO2 is not harmless.  If it was harmless, then we'd be able to breathe it just as we do regular air and not be effected.  But increase concentrations of CO2 levels high enough in the air, and it still leads to medical problems and decreased air quality.

And that's bad for the economy.

to call Jabailo once more on his nonsense about carbon mitigation hurting the "emerging poor" and global warming helping them?

You do understand, do you not Jabailo, that several hundreds of millions of the "emerging poor" are likely to find their homes and workplaces under water well before the fortunate residents of Kent begin to feel the pinch?

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.