A couple thoughts here... We're not Europe. We're not "subjects". We don't like government mandates. However... At the same time, corperations own our current government. They act completely selfishly, with ruthless backstabbing effeciency, and little "humanity". If you force them to operate in a carbon trading system, they will exploit it to the maximum benefit possible. We would rapidly find ourselves filling out "carbon emission forms" like tax forms, claiming exemptions for heating fuel, etc... Yes, this is the slipperly slope argument. Why should it matter? Every time we have had a conflict with determined corperate interests over the last 30 years, we have lost. I will not willingly give them one more tool to use to limit my freedom and choice.


Did I mention, we're not Europe? Our cities are mostly less than 200 years old. They're certainly built around cars. People do not live near their jobs, they do not live near shopping or vital services. We just had a rash of businesses close because TxDOT closed a freeway offramp. An economy is a finely balanced thing, a minor change has ripple effects. Our cities are archetected entirely wrong for mass transit. This isn't going to change overnight, or even over the next 30 years. Additionally... We're pretty big. My state is in fact larger than the entire nation of France. I can drive at 110 kph for 5 hours in any direction and not reach even a state border. We have no viable passenger rail. Outside of Boston & New York, Amtrak is a government sponsored joke. It might as well not exist. We're stuck with cars, trucks, and airplanes. These are big $$ fixed assets. You don't just get rid of them to suit some political whim. Selling a house to move closer to a job implies that there is a buyer available.


Let's talk about those slight reductions... Assuming it's all true, Kyoto is not enough. Yet it would tie the US economy in knots and let China & India off the hook. According to the alarmists, twice the Kyoto mandates would not be enough. If I'm reading their propaganda correctly, the only way to make a big enough dent is to take away everyone's cars, and stop burning coal. Europe could do this. It's smaller, it's cities are more centralized, and it has the public transit. The US cannot, and it would take 50 years to build out the required transit. Using the slippery slope rule... Once we buy in the scheme, we have to keep tightening our belt until enough reduction is achieved. Given the above, this translates to "go live in a cave". Thanks I'll pass... Learn to swim.


Having said all that...

My house is full of CF lightbulbs. Why? Because I'm cheap.


Two of my three vehicles are diesel. One is a tow rig, but it's really for better fuel economy. Also... Better flex fuel options. I can make fuel from vegetable oil if I have to. The third is a "classic" (haha... It's VW bug...) restoration project. It get's 30 mpg.


I used to heat my house in California using a catalytic wood stove. I had a source of free carbon-neutral firewood. As rare as they are, I also used to ride a regional passenger train... because I wanted to. Not because I was forced to.


So... Are you for or against nucular power?