Of course Bush is an idiot. That's not to say that carbon caps are a good idea. What is the point of charging a 30% carbon tax (or whatever) on individuals who have absolutely no choice about how their power is generated? It just breeds resentment, which leads inevitably to failure. First you have to give them choice. This is how the free market works, whether you like it or not.
 

George Bush may deny Global Warming, he should learn from King Knute and Hildegard of Bingen.

King Knute made fools of his flatters when he mocked their praises that he could move heaven and earth by having his throne moved to the edge of the sea , commanded the tide not to rise, and having the tide continue to rise and the sea swirl around his throne.

Mathew Fox quotes Hildegard of Bingen's statement in the 12th century: "If humans interfere with the web of creation, God's justice will allow the earth to punish humanity".

Two scientists writings I would suggest for people concerned about the future of life on this planet are those of William Ruddiman and Peter Ward.

William Ruddiman had published in Scientific American in March 2005 an article titled "How Did Humans First Alter Global Climate". In late 2006 he published a book on the topic titled "Plows, Plagues and Petroleum:How Humans Took Control of Climate".  He presents evident that human activity began adding CO2 and methane to the atmosphere thousands of years ago.

Peter Ward got an article published in Scientific American in October, 2006 titled "Impact from the Deep". In 2006 he published a book titled "Out of Thin Air". In these publications he presents information about how atmospheric CO2 and O2 levels have affected evolution and a mechanism for several of the mass extinctions in the past by CO2 rising above a critical level .

Jack East

Well, d41295, in some contexts your reasoning holds:  We have no choice about paying for that foolish war, and no doubt about it there's now a lot of resentment.  

While any tax will always be accompanied by some degree of resentment, it remains that much of that resentment has to do with how the money is being spent.  If the Iraq war had been directed toward removing the Baathists from power and then getting out ASAP while leaving Iraq in a stable condition (albeit in three pieces), I think it's fair to say that there would be far less resentment about the war.  In the case of existing gas taxes, resentment is limited because motorists perceive that they receive a direct and related value from the resulting highway work.  In the case of a carbon tax, if the money goes alternative energy etc. rather than into a general fund, similarly any resentment would be much reduced.

I choose a world where the laws of nature don't apply and we can burn as much fossil fuel as we want without any global warming.

What?  They're not offering that?

http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/

  Actually, the one ray of hope from Da Moron In Chief, is that he really doesn't believe what he is saying, so it is potentially possible for him to just change and say something else, all the while believing that it is what he has been saying all along.

  That said, I have no illusions that either he or the Democrats are going to do much "real" about global warming this election cycle.  I would love to be proven wrong.

patrick