I agree with John Mosely, but I'd like to add another analogy. Our economic system is heavily regulated and structured, and, despite grumbles, conservatives agree with that regulation more than not. In fact, they ARE the regulators. Similarly, conservative economic theory stands behind our current theory of a rationed money supply that uses a frankly dictatorial system to determine our access to credit. I'm not against that system, btw, I'm just pointing out that conservatives are not being fully honest about their attitudes about regulation and rationing.

It's not a big vs small government thing at all. Their concern is that rationing may create profits for, and concede economic control to, people other than themselves. Romm obliviously proves them right by demanding tax money for his own constituencies, and by pooh-poohing the economic consequences of the actions he advocates. There is political opportunity as the power of conservatism wanes, but only if well-intended actors like Romm broaden their toolbox beyond simplistic technological fixes. Plugging the whole country into an outlet won't solve global warming.

I agree that Kyoto did not adequately address China and India. I'd point out, though, that China and (particularly) India are likely to be severely affected under most models of global warming. Doing nothing will not be an option for those countries either.

Doing nothing hurts the poor the most, btw, since they can not pay to get out of harms way or the likely extra cost of food and water.

The real key here in the US, though, is to build a response nationally that can be extended internationally, or joined to other national responses. And that response has to include economic rewards for conservation.

Whatever the fate of a bill now, I disagree that people will ignore the effects of global warming. Eventually, they will create political pressure to make changes. Schwarzanegger's Cal-ee-forn-ee-ya is burning. The Midwest is kneedeep in water. The West is parched. New Orleans is still fucked. The North Pole may be ice free this summer. Maybe these are related to global warming, maybe not, but eventually people will want their politicians to do something finally about the weather.

I just have to disagree again with Romm's argument that cap-and-trade moderated rationing is somehow at odds with technological advances. He never addresses this point in his reply. We can have both.

I am not sanguine about his argument that plug-ins will be cheap, or that electricity is "clean." Where does electricity come from? Coal, nuclear, dams--all with intense environmental costs. Oh sure, we can cover our public lands with windmills and solar cell plants, but there are costs there too. His one-solution proposal makes me suspicious of snake oil.

Romm is simply obfuscating to claim that oil prices will raise sufficiently to encourage adequate conservation to avoid global warming. This is religious thinking. Why should the supply of oil and the demand for it (which sets prices) somehow equal the human need to prevent global warming? Nature doesn't care about us, it doesn't create a balanced scale in the economy to ensure our survival. Sure, rising oil prices help, but they will not rise nearly enough to bring about the kind of conservation that Romm himself says we need. The key is to create mandated scarcity, ie rationing, eg cap and trade. And Romm logic does not include the very real possibility of gas price declines that stretch over years--unless gas is rationed or a compensating tax is instituted to ensure higher pump prices.

Romm avoids the truth that we currently HAVE technologies that can drastically reduce oil consumption. We HAVE fuel-efficient cars. We HAVE hybrids. I'm not saying we have enough, I'm just saying that we had these things and people still bought SUVs. At 5 dollar gas the well off will still buy monster hybrid SUVs which still won't give enough mpg to cut emissions. The market alone, as currently structured based on the commodity price of oil, does and will not present the kind of rewards for conservation that will drastically reduce consumption.

Similarly, Romm misunderstands WWII rationing. The mistake the government made then was not allowing ration coupons to be legally sold. Because of that error, black markets sprung up and the government was closed out of the created value of this new economic good. But, if you received a ration coupon for tires, and you didn't own a car, you sold your coupons on the black to a guy who owned two cars and you loved rationing because it was money in your pocket. That pay off for decreased consumption is what is lost if you rule out cap and trade.

Romm should not let conservatives dictate the dialogue on this issue by countering "technology" when the say "rationing."

Folks, on both sides, read what the author is actually writing, not what he claims to be writing. This is not a review of the science behind global warming. Romm is making a poorly defended case for a particular means of combating global warming.

Here's his buried thesis:

Krauthammer and the conservatives have it backward. The solution to global warming doesn't require rationing energy or anything else. It requires a government-industry partnership to accelerate existing and near-term clean energy technologies into the market.

Romm states that technology will save us, but offers no underlying support for his argument. He just beats up on some deniers. Nor does he discuss the environmental (or social) costs of these supposedly "clean" technologies.

The technology vs rationing dichotomy that Romm sets up is false. Creating incentives that reward conservation will accelerate new technologies--or simply less use--into the marketplace. Simply offering technologies (and at yuppie prices) will not prove attractive quickly enough to prevent global warming catastrophe. Romm assumes a natural relationshiop between oil supply, global warming, and market prices. There is nonesuch. He is as dangerous a romantic as the conservatives he mocks.