This world has gone completely nuts... do I care?

DANGER do not remove the so called greenhouse gases.

To unravel the problem of Global Climate Change will require considerable thought. The problem is not greenhouse gas but a HOT ocean and the oil membrane.

To rapidly remove the oil membrane (as if we can) will bring on a disaster, read massive Ice Age, as never seen before.

To remove the green house gases will lead to a precipitous cooling....

To leave the climatic situation as it is will only make the final consequences much more bleak.

We must play one climatic change cause against the other and slowly bring the health of the atmospheric climate and the sea, back to a natural state and in equilibrium.

The science projected by the world's leaders is dismal and dangerous.
But Mental/Metal poisoning is rife and I am sure no one will listen to sanity.

Too bad, this Earth was a nice place to live.

Mr. Pielke,

The consequences of global warming described in the IPCC and Stern reports show that time is at a soaring premium. So what's wrong with a mitigation strategy that will "only buy time"? Time is the vehicle of innovation and adaptation. Under the guise of scientific formalism, your clarification supports the trend of political fatalism criticized above. Let's not hide the value which lies between the present moment and the (threatened) arrival of climate tipping points. In the interim, technology will advance and new generations will be born. That's our return on a reasonable carbon tax.

GJ

Thanks, I don't disagree.  But we won't be well served by mischaracterizing the challenge.  There is no partial solution to decarbonization -- it has to reach a level of net zero emissions at some point.  Pointing out the reality of the challenge is not political fatalism, it is, well, reality.  Thanks ...

Please, please, please tax carbon.  Buy me some time.  I can deploy solar cheaper than coal.  I need time.

Yes, I agree. We need to tax carbon; and to speed up the effects we need to supplement it with rule based regulation, along with public works spending for things like trains that won't happen based on individual decisions.

Mr. Cowan, what if a commitment is made to channel carbon-tax revenue into sequestration efforts (terra preta, geologic, whatever) and additional clean generation?

I'm also not sure I follow you exactly on how the benefits of taxing carbon would have us support it. I certainly support cigarette taxes, but this does not make me want to smoke. Could you please explain it more precisely? Thanks!