As policies start to be discussed, the carbon divide moves away from the ideological boundary between Democrats and Republicans to the boundary of interests between states that produce fuels and coal and those who don't.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are more coal-friendly and oil-friendly than e.g. John McCain. Obama's idea to transmute coal to liquids has the advantage or disadvantage that it produces twice as much CO2 than traditional petroleum fuels. Do you think that Obama's green friends call it an advantage?
India won't accept the role of a second class global citizen who has a smaller right to emit CO2 per capita.
Ross McKitrick proposes to introduce his T3 tax, a fee for CO2 emissions whose size would be dynamically determined by John Christy and Roy Spencer and their UAH measurements of the troposphere temperature (and by their competitors, RSS). The faster it warms, the more taxes you pay.
That would be great for CO2 emitting stocks, especially if the tax could go negative which has roughly 50% probability. If you hypothetically imagine that the warming would accelerate, the T3 tax would be much more strict a regulator. I think that the economist's proposal is the second fairest and most meaningful solution of the disputes whether the tax should exist in the first place - after having no policy.
In the Financial Times, Czech president asks whether global warming is truth or propaganda. What is at risk, the climate or freedom? Click the picture above - see the URL, ft.com/klaus ;-). You can also ask the expert. The text is nicely written except for the comment that the temperature increased by 0.6 "per cent". ;-) Of course, he meant per cent of the difference between the boiling point and freezing point of water.
