I would like to add the following link to your site, which includes a recent paper by Dr. Hansen, “Targeting Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?” which reiterates some of the points you have made.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf

Like you and me, most Americans (60-80% depending on whose polls you read) want the federal government to take action now on climate change. We — the American people — understand that we have a problem. What most of us don’t yet understand — and this too is reflected in the polls — is what our real options are for addressing the problem.

The options at hand appear complex and uncertain; this is an important part of the challenge. The available options are made vastly more complicated, and vastly less likely to be acted upon (in a timely manner), by the lack of systematic effort to clearly explain them to us, the electorate.

In his commencement speech at Harvard last year, Bill Gates trenchantly noted that to solve the world’s hard problems — like climate change — we must cut through the inherent complexity of the situation to gain a clearer understanding of the nature of the problem and of our options for solving it. Lack of clarity inhibits action. Those who oppose action understand this all too well, and they foment confusion as a blocking strategy.

Clear explanations like yours, if repeated often by a variety of trusted communicators, will go a long way toward readying America — and our leaders — to make good decisions about climate change. I hope that other communicators will rise to the level of clarity exhibited by two caring parents from Oakland.

Thanks to the FIRST AMENDMENT, nobody forfeits free speech rights about personal opinions by working for the government and to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) which works to support and protect whistleblowers.

I am unsure of whether avoiding the word “tax” is wise; “fee” looks good; what matters most, I believe, is making the case to the public. Hey, the Clinton-McCain “tax holiday” got a fair bit of traction.

What appears to be the best approach is a refund of at least some, preferably all or most, of the monies collected by the taxes/fees on a per-taxfiler basis, at least for the first few years — the approach championed by the carbon Tax Center since its inception. This is easy to understand, and gives John Q Public a good chance to beat the system, or at least to feel the system is working for his benefit rather than to enrich well-connected special interests.

Keep up the good work!

I’m a former EPA enforcement attorney (& chem. engineer) — I’ve reached the same conclusions.

Climate Chaos is an EXPONENTIALLY-growing disaster. Cumbersome
“linear” solutions (regulations or cap-and-trade) won’t work quickly or broadly enough if they work at all. Cap & trade has acheived ZERO net GHG reductions in Europe. Given EPA’s record of weak enforcement (and very legal limited authority), enforcement of a cap and trade system isn’t remotely plausible.

I volunteer for the Carbon Tax Center (www.carbontax.org).

Check out: “The Un-Tax” (Why a revenue-neutral fee / tax on carbon pollution streamlines the economy– the opposite of the drag created by taxes on work or income) and “Sprint vs Marathon” (4 ways to “fix” cap & trade, and why they fall short; distilled from the Congr. Budget Ofc. study you cited).

I applaud British Columbia’s new carbon tax and dividend system. Dan Rosenblum posted BC’s press release at http://www.carbontax.org. We welcome your comments and support.

Thanks for courageously speaking out.