Romm stated that "Yet a serious price for a carbon emission allowance of even $400 per metric ton (which is three times the current price for carbon in the European Trading Scheme) would raise the price of gasoline only $1 a gallon."

$400 per Metric tonne is ten times the current price on the European exchanges.

I just pulled up ECX Futures and it is a bit 28 Euro/MT which works out to $45/MT at $1.60/Euro

Second, Gasoline produces 8.877 Kg CO2/gal & Diesel 10.186 Kg CO2/Gallon; since 1000 Kg equals a Metric tonne, at $400/MT, the cost per gallon works out to $3.55 for gasoline and $4.07 for diesel.

This works out to roughly the tax level that Europeans have placed on gasoline, (diesel is a bit lower) for decades.

Presenting incorrect facts do not help in what will have Greenhouse gas emissions regulations.

People need to know what the cost is and that it is worth paying.

Generally, most observers place the cost of CCS on fossil fuel plants at $60/MT; But we really don't know until we get working on it. Until there is legislation, there won't be anything beyond Federal demonstration projects.

I believe in taking science seriously- but just with a grain of salt. After all, I still remember when global cooling was a threat to our future. I am not sure that recorded human history is a long enough observation period to make conclusive statements about the human contribution to climate change- given the vast swings in climate the earth has experienced in its billions of years of history. Nevertheless, I believe we should do everything we can to be stewards of this planet. I also support doing what we can without taking food off anyone's table(bio-fuels). We also need to make the changes without putting folk out of work, increasing the cost of living, or exporting more jobs overseas where there are light restrictions.

that whenever a problem occurs that requires changes in regulation or a greater degree of international cooperation, it is called "socialism". Wake up! Changes are necessary. Unregulated capitalism disappeared log ago. It is better to determine how best to make the changes than to deny the need.

Do you? How long was that considered a problem? Just long enough for computers to get a bit better, maybe? It is not the same science now as it was then, and repeating that tired anti-global warming line is ignorant.

pastorhorace: "I believe in taking science seriously- but just with a grain of salt. After all, I still remember when global cooling was a threat to our future."

Unlike with global warming theory, there was never a scientific consensus with respect to "global cooling" - not even close.

pastorhorace: "I am not sure that recorded human history is a long enough observation period to make conclusive statements about the human contribution to climate change- given the vast swings in climate the earth has experienced in its billions of years of history."

Our understanding of human-caused climate change is based not only on data collected from recorded human history - it is, for example, also based CO2 concentrations in ice core samples that go back hundreds of thousands of years.

There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate... Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

First of all, there's a variety of responses which have come from the left and it's a mistake to think that all the Greenies wish to employ the same means. The Liberals are the ones who have largely been pushing for increased regulation, it's something they pushed for before the advent of Global Warming and it's something they'll push for afterwards.

The State Socialists have declared this as irrefutable evidence of the failure of capitalism to concieve of reality beyond capital profit and the need for a huge push for state interventionism and control of the market to bring about a more human friendly system. They argue that progess is too slow and ineffective with the current system and we'll be screwed if we don't give ourselves over to a central authority.

The Libertarian Socialists, whom I might add make up a surprising bulk of student, grassroot and small-scale "greenie" groups, have declared that the only solution is a radical rethinking of how we utilise and transport energy and see this as an impetuous to push for more localised agriculture and energy production, as well as a decentralisation of renewable technologies and a push for greater independence.

So in actuality the leftist response to the crisis is varied and unsolidified, not driven as some may claim by some all powerful homogenising conspiracy.

Perhaps I am committing an egrecious mistake, but I will admit that I have never read an article on global warming. Or, more specifically, I have never read one written by scientists. The only articles I've read have been written with extreme bias by journalists, on either side of the political slant. So I fully admit I may not be the best person to comment on these matters.

However, I find the general attitude in these comments-and in the article-alarming and slightly narcisstic. There will always be an us-them dictomy in society, but I believe that one of the biggest reasons we have reached an impasse and are heading for disaster is because we're refusing to listen to each other. Read the contempt for conservatives and religious-types. It's quite hateful. Is it any wonder they are ignoring you when you spew such unchecked hate?

Let's take some personal responsibility here, folks. Conservatives are not creating these policies in a vaccum. And the extreme whackos are not significant enough in Congress. Furthermore, I'm blindsided by the scream that somehow "the Bible" reinforces these things. The only thing the Bible teaches that is at all linked to global warming is that all things-including life, and the Earth-end. The Earth will eventually crumble. It has a lifespan, just like every other planet and star in the galaxy.

So let's just all calm down for a sec, kay? Would it be such a challenging task to, I dunno, look at the other side of the fence and try to answer some of the doubts of the Right-wingers? Could there be a more conclusive study on global warming? Could the scientific community, who it must be said are not the most vocal bunch, make an attempt at public education? Could we come up with global solutions without demeaning someone else's beliefs? I mean, there is nothing in the Bible that says "thou shall trash the planet."