it also talks about how much an individual's electric bill might rise (50 to 100 percent) and how much the price of gas might increase (50 cents to $1 a gallon).

REPLY: Yeah, but that's OK. Certain people (and you know who you are) will place blame on those who they differ with to spin it in their favor. Never mind the truth.

The writing is on the wall at this point that our nation will do something about cutting greenhouse gas emissions, it's just a matter of what, when and how much it will pinch our pocketbooks.

REPLY: To those who will use the spin, thank you for your all caring, touchy feely policies. Thank you for picking my wallet for the big bad non-existant boogie man. Again, you people know who you are. Phonies!

For all of the talk about postive and negative feedbacks in our climate, it is still surprising that the same scientists cannot see the feedbacks in our economies. One of the first mistakes economists make when predicting future economic growth or lack thereof, is to make assumptions. The IPCC's SPM is full of them. They assume current trends will continue idefinitely regardless of the actions they propose. Economics is not that simple. You cannot propose taking $1 trillion dollars out of our economy and think nothing big will happen. The AGW lobby cannot tell the populace the truth - and that truth is simple: to keep GHG at current levels will require a wholesale contraction of our economies -i.e. recession. Only reduced economic activity will achieve thier goals. You tinker with the tax code to such a degree as they propose, and the law of unintended consequences takes over. Also, the burden will not be "shared" evenly. I imagine that most of the $1 trillion dollars will come right out of the US. China and India have already told the IPCC to get bent. And Europe itself, despite thier self-righteous rhetoric continues to emmit GHG at an ever greater rate.

Institutional investors are not stupid. The minute it becomes clear that both the consumption and production side of our economy could take a huge hit, you will see money fly out of equities and into the Bond Market. Anyone who who depends on equities for thier retirement (401ks, state run pensions, IRAs, Annutites), may have to reconsider retirement.

A glimpse into The Law of Unintended Consequences is the ethanol market. It was just a year ago that Congress and the President were mandating and subsidizing corn based ethanol. However, the last few months a curious thing was happening. Lobbists from the ranchers, and dairy association are complaining that the spike in corn prices is making it near impossible to feed thier livestock. Those in the food processing industry are likewise complaining that is becoming more and more difficult not to raise food prices as corn is becoming difficult to afford. With one piece of politically correct legislation, Congress is creating a domestic food shortage.

Take the above example and multiply it by a thousand, and you begin to see the enormity of the situation.

What's ironic is that gas prices have already increased about $1 over the past six months. A couple winters ago, heating bills were up nearly 50%. So these price increases discussed have already occured simply by market forces.

And guess what? The economy has absorbed them and continues to chug along.

One more thing. The era of cheap oil and gas are over. Prices will continue to rise no matter what. If regulations don't increase fuel prices, then increased demand -- as we have seen - will. That's what happens when you have infinite demand for a resourec that's finite.

It's time to make the sacrifice, get off the unsustainable path we're currently on, and slowly build a new path to a sustainable economy.

What benefit will be witnessed by the stricter legislation? If politicians do impose regulations that increase gas by $1 per gallon and double our electricity bill, how much will we decrease global temperatures? My guess is not at all. Why? Simple economics. We are competing on a global scale with other countries. If we impose ridiculously strict regulations on industry in this country, that will only increase the cost of doing business in our country. Industries located in the USA will be more likely to cross the border and set up shop in some third world country that does not care about setting some inane regulations that will destroy jobs. I'd be willing to bet that these same industries will then end up dumping MORE CO2 in the air since these countries have much lower standards for air pollution than the US. Unfortunately ignorance in the media, congress, and academia replaces common sense and these individuals are too foolish to understand that companies, not unlike water flowing downhill, will take the path of least resistance when trying to produce their product.

What's ironic is that gas prices have already increased about $1 over the past six months. A couple winters ago, heating bills were up nearly 50%. So these price increases discussed have already occured simply by market forces.

And guess what? The economy has absorbed them and continues to chug along.

REPLY: You still haven't answered my question, Marx. Who do you give credit to as a result of this? This economy that is "chuging along?"

There will no doubt be some costs to addressing excessive carbon output, but a recent study suggests that doing nothing will cost roughly $20 trillion.

See, e.g. http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1776868.htm
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review

Besides, why spend billions f dollars and thousands of lives securing our oil supply when we could be investing in more modern, less polluting energy technologies. Sun

Hell, all our energy ultimately comes from the (not counting power fro nuclear power plants -- are you volunteering your town as the wase site?), so why not eleminate the middle man -- especially when the middle man is an arabian or Russian despot?

Oiz,

I know exactly where you're going with your question. You want me to say that your hero, Ronald Reagan, is the reason for our economy. I hate to pop your bubble of Reagenesque delusion, but presidents have little to no effect on the economy. Reagan. I will agree that the tax rate was way too high during the 1970s, and bringing those taxes down were a good thing. But, at this point, there is very little data that shows that cutting taxes causes economic growth. For example, tax rates were low during the Reagan-Bush recession of the early 1990s. After Bush signed a tax increase, guess what happened? The GDP expanded 5% and the recession was officially over. After Clinton raised taxes, we heard the usual doom-and-gloom from the dittoheads. Guess what happened? The economy exploded with growth. Shrub cut taxes in 2003, and the economy grew.

What does this recent history tell you? It shows you that there is little correlation with cutting taxes by a few percentage points and increasing economic growth. We've had periods of huge economic growth after we increased taxes and cut taxes. Fiddling with the tax rate, which is all the dittohead crowd focuses on, is simply a waste of time.

If I had to give credit to something for the economy, then I'd give credit to the Internet. The Internet is the basis of our current information and knowledge-based economy, and it's what really has made globalization so feasible.

Sorry, but your hero, Reagan, has little to do with it.

Greg, the problems with energy depend not as much on the generatinng method but the storage and delivery methods. Petroleum provides a good combination of availability, ease of handling and compactness that other methods are hard put to beat, especially in price. Yes, there are other possible sources, some of them well within reach technologically, but they fall afoul (like ethanol) of the decades of growth in a petroleum based infrastructure. I have no idea of the total costs, but they would have to be in the billions and I wouldn't be shocked to see it in the trillions.

One simple change? Move from internal to external combustion vehicles. The major problem a century ago was that materials technology was limited so that IC engines could produce more power at a cheaper cost than EC engines. The state of the art has changed and off the shelf technology can be used to build viable EC cars. Why not make the big move?

A. People won't like the idea.
B. Factories will have to be retooled.
C. Research to find bugs will have to be done.
D. Fueling points will have to be established compatible with the new vehicles with most of them operating at a loss as the changeover occurs.

Anyone read the last paragraph were it said "And Chevron is not just protecting its fossil-fuels turf; the company already produces 70 percent of the ethanol made in the United States." Oh my, big oil also produces ethanol? What are we going to do! One company makes 70% of the ethanol made in the U.S. to boot. Looks like what ever we do big oil will keep getting bigger.

Well Well Well! Marko, I give you credit and admiration. You finally answered the question, and you answered it without giving credit and or blame to anyone person or persons (except for maybe that little "Shrub" comment). I am impressed. And as I mentioned in a previous post, the American people through innovation fuel the economy. You can't deny that certain governmental polices have an affect, but we can at least agree that placing credit or blame on any one person or persons is not the way to go. Good Stuff! (Laura, the world is coming an end! Mark and I actually AGREE on something!!!!).....

What a bunch of garbage ! Global Warming?!Puh-leeze. Spare me. Tell it to upstate NY residents who had 7 feet of snow in a 1-2 week period.

Why did Laura allow the "global Warming is a Joke" off-topic post?

All taxes are not created equal. Local, state, and federal taxes are almost completely fed back into the US economy. If the tax money is well spent, it acts as a feedback amplifier rather than a drain. If it is poorly spent, it is fed back less efficiently.

The US is a superpower because of its economic strength. This not only due to the large population and large landmass, but because of the way its government and taxation system is structured. Compare the old Soviet Union. The current EU has enormous language and cultural barriers that prevent it from become a superpower.

As well as changing how tax money is spent, tax rates can be adjusted. Changing these tax rates effectively changes the proportion of public to private sector jobs. Certain things are done most efficiently by the local, state, or federal government (collaboration), while other things are done more efficiently by private enterprise (competition).

A carbon tax of $240 billion a year that is distributed to developing countries (and not directly fed back into the US economy) would be absolutely crushing to american working families. These people are already struggling with the current high gasoline and home heating costs. Families cutting back on discretionary spending hurts local businesses, which affects employment and income taxes. This becomes a vicious negative feedback cycle. Has the IPCC studied as many economic models as it has climate models?

Many people claim that the $100 billion a year war spending is driving up our national debt. Even war spending is not much of a drain, since almost all of the funding is for salaries and equipment. Almost all of that salary and equipment money gets fed back into the US economy.

If $100 billion in feedback spending is driving up our national debt, think of what a $240 billion drain would do! Who would administer this tax money? The UN? They couldn't administer Iraq's oil-for-food program without excessive corruption, so how could they possibly administer trillions of carbon tax dollars?

Developing countries have a great deal of goverment corruption. In my opinion, these countries have trouble developing because of excessive government corruption more than anything else. It is not because they lack resources. Since WWII, many countries with very few resources have successfully developed.

Because the United States is geographically very sprawled out and a large part of the country has very cold winters, you would expect the US to use more energy per capita that western european countries with high population densities.

I think that western europe loves the idea of a global carbon tax because they would pay relatively little of the tax but play a huge role in administering the tax money. The europeans simply want to line their pockets with american tax dollars. Taxing the american economy to death is the only way that the EU can compete with the US economy.

I hope that, before the next US presidential election, a majority of americans realize that AGW and carbon taxation are scams invented by the EU because they can't compete with the US economy on a level playing field.

The europeans should be focussing on how to make the most of this current natural warming cycle, because history has shown that it wont last forever and that the following cold cycle will be long and harsh. It must be great for agriculture, tourism, etc. Western europe has always flourished during warmer climates.

Somehow their governments have brainwashed the population into believing that the nice warm weather that they have been enjoying is somehow evil. It is likely that nationally enforced school curricula have much to do with this. The national testing recently introduced into the US is great for raising standards, but most countries go way beyond that and have done so for generations.

I think anything goes here except the word 'Iraq'. If the word 'Iraq' is anywhere in your post, it appears that your message never gets posted. At least that's been my experience.

Thor and Mark - since this is a global warming blog, any comment about global warming that doesn't otherwise violate AccuWeather.com's Terms of Usage is okay by me. Yes, I would rather have comments that actually add something to the discussion, but I've had experiences where posters start with something insignificant and when they realize that they will be published here, they do start to contribute.