They say they want to do cap and trade.  

But a "Better" system than what the UK is doing that "won't hurt the economy".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6716429.stm

I think a better way to reduce pollution -- and also to make the consumer feel the result -- is for countries to create import taxes based on the amount of CO2 that was expended to make a product.   This would make an efficient producer who puts the capital into scrubbers and efficiency not have to compete with a low cost polluting manufacturer (who is "dumping" CO2 goods on the market).

The other result of this is that people who are jumping up and down shouting "global warming" will be made to pay the price for wanting things a certain way.   In some sense the ideal system would not be amoung nations, but amoung individuals.   I have already proposed a logarithmic pricing scheme for energy consumption.  

This plan would recognize that the middle class person is trapped into a system (autos, homes) that he cannot easily escape, and is forced to consume a certain amount of energy to survive.

However, that doesn't mean that others can inflate themselves into lifestyles that use twice, ten times or one hundred times that amount of energy ( Paris Hilton, Steve Ballmer, Sultan of Brunei would pay through the nose).

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

Apparently, if Texas were a country.
It would be the seventh largest CO2 emitter in the world.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4856720.html

I guess you could call that leadership...

Yet this assessment rests on giving credence to the regime's obsession with BRIC nations' verifiable, and enforceable, participation.

In reality, as Bush has now made very plain,
the regime does not wish the BrIIC nations
(Brazil - Indonesia - India - & China) and others
to sign up to binding commitments to an anuual  cut in GHG outputs,
let alone transitional national emission entitlements,
served by trading in the latter.

"Long-Term Aspirational Goals," that will be agreed over an arduous 18-month US-hosted negotiation,
are apparently the desired outcome.

So, just supposing that this is merely the bidding front rather than the real ambition,
just what is the latter ?

It seems safe to assume that Haliburton's peers foresee GHG constaints looming,
and will now be looking to shape those constrains to optimize US corporate benefit.

As far as I can see, that requires the allocation of tradeable emissions entitlements by so-called "grandfathering,"
rather than by wealth (auctioning)
let alone by public (per capita) distribution.

Under this system, the major extant polluters are gifted entitlements by the state
not only to profit reliably from incremental GHG cuts,
but also to maintain market share by their raised advantage over new entrants to the market.

This is, of course, no less than the hasty privatization (siezure) of the entire national stock of personal GHG emission entitlements,
by the corporate state.

Sadly it appears that US E.NGOs are, once again, all too likely to be outflanked -
for while the somewhat shrill campaign for a Federal Carbon Tax
must appear like a gift-horse for GOP election strategists,
and an embarrassment for their Dem counterparts,
and a clear non-starter for the requisite bi-partisan consensus with future GOP presidencies,

that Carbon Tax option is in reality a neat diversion of attention from the efficient, equitable and electable alternative to "Grandfathering,"
namely the national distribution of tradeable personal emission entitlements.

What is just shameful is that Blair & his ilk are already remarking that EU & US must use "the same"
trading system for it to be effective -
i.e. the quislings are seeking to grant the US regime design rights on the system to be deployed,
when in fact that is a decision for all member-nations of the UNFCCC.

As to Bush's gambit, no doubt it will, if allowed, advance the day when the US eventally deigns to adopt that perverse allocation system,

but only if they are allowed to get away with it !

Regards,

Bill

"The Brazilian position is clear cut," Mr Lula said. "I cannot accept the idea that we have to build another group to discuss the same issues that were discussed in Kyoto and not fulfilled.

"If you have a multilateral forum [the UN] that makes a democratic decision ... then we should work to abide by those rules [rather than] simply to say that I do not agree with Kyoto and that I will develop another institution."
...
"I am open-minded about talking to President Bush ... I will never refuse to discuss any idea, but we should respect the decisions made in the multilateral forums. It is the only thing we have all agreed on in a democratic way," he said. "If the US is the country that most contributes with greenhouse gases, in the world, it should assume more responsibility to reduce emissions."

Now, if we could just get him to rethink his take on biofuels...

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Essentially two carbon taxes, one for manufacturers based purely on carbon footprint, and one for individuals based on actual energy use and income.  Is anyone else digging this notion?

There are two chairs.

One produced by a factory in Illinois using highly paid American workers.

The other produced by 10 year olds in Cambodia.

Yet, the American chair is cheaper!

Why?  Because all of its processes are run by solar panels, that generate their own hydrogen and which is pumped into fuel cells.

Imagine --

You drive up to the gas pump (or hydrogen filling station) in your fuel efficient, 150mpg Chevy Volt.  You fill it to the brim -- and drive away paying $10 dollars!

Right behind you, a Hummer, which is part of a fleet, driven by Paris Hilton's profligate sister.  She's on her way to a party at Bill Gates' mansion, which will be lit by old fashioned light bulbs, blazing into the night and have air conditioned tents.

She gets her first 10 gallons for $10 -- but each additional gallon costs her $10 more!   Because she's exceeded her monthly "reasonable energy use level".

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))