richardson pulls my vote away from edwards, for now. not that i'm totally excited about either one. richardson is a vote for his foregin policy, and enrgy excellence, and a protest vote against the top three. if he were not there, edwards would be a reluctant choice.

it looks to me like grist likes richardson's plan the best.

what was the reaction to his statement?

you know he has a whole book written on that subject?

check it out, the conservative nanny state.

exactly!

which is why pericles' comment "Wake up and smell the coffee. 'Market based...' means screw the consumer." is borderline idiotic.

sounds a little bit like dean baker's solution in the conservative nanny state.

do you like your market based semi-conductors that double in speed every 18 months?

how about your market based flat panel tvs?

or carbon fiber bicycles?

or photovoltaic solar cells?

i could go on...

the market is an incredible tool for innovation.

dude, did you even listen to that speech?  i doubt it, because if you had, you would not be making these claims. he was not cheerleading, in fact, he even state his disagreement with some of their principles, but acknowledged that they were part of the democratic big tent.

started out volunteering on a campaign doing tech work, when the paid staffer had to leave, all of a sudden, i was the only person who knew how to do it.  it was expected that i would do it, and i did it without compensation, but stopped when it became possible because i felt unappreciated. i had made the commitment to the campaign, and put myself in that position, so that's why i did it. it happened before that, and it will happen again. you don't volunteer because you're looking for strokes, you do it because you believe in a cause.

fwiw, i still think obama should make a good faith gesture, and pay anthony a more than fair amount for the names.

i'm not an obaman--and they definitely need to fix this, including compensation--but i didn't see any smearing of his reputation. what are you referring to, specifically?

let the diary speak for itself. we already know your opinion.

i want it to be over. i want to get on with life.

i am not proud of that, but it's true.

the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2005, which is  a almost the same as the one they introduced in 2003. so i think we can assume that the latest is similar enough to use text from the previous ones in order to analyze it.  here's the bill itself

fwiw, it's worth, it's full of grandfathered carbon emission allowances, and i think it subsidizes nuclear, but i just skimmed. anyway, how can anything sponsored primary by LieberMcanCain be any good?

but it still takes carbon to do all those things.  in an extreme example, if all the carbon permits are allocated to the carbon heavy "status quo" industries, then when new ways of doing things will cost disproportionately more, even if they use less carbon.  let's say the incandescent bulb industry was allocated all the permits, then the cfl company wants to build a factory--they will have to buy their carbon rights from the current polluters, rather than from the public, or the commons, or whatever.

it's all about allocation. unless permits are auctioned off, or allocated evenly to each individual citizen, politically biased allocation can be expected.

"Nuclear, hydro, geothermal, tidal, solar, wind, etc. don't use carbon."

oh really? then try setting up a solar plant, including the factories to build the solar cells, and the silicone crystals, etc, without emitting any carbon.  try the same with wind, try importing the ore, and then fabricating the windmill propellers and trunks out of steel and hauling all the parts and workers out to the remote wind farms to be installed without emitting any carbon. you have to think in terms of LCA--lifecycle analysis.  there is no such thing as an LCA carbon output of zero. not right now anyway, and now is what matters here.

the point is, if credits are rewarded to politically connected industries with a large existing capacity of carbon emissions--which is likely--then that automatically raises the floor for everyone else who wants to do anything, giving a huge financial advantage to the biggest offenders.

oh, there are totally low info free-traders, actually there may be more off them, they dominate our corporate media.

if you notice, i never said there weren't, i was responding to a claim by paul rosenburg that the left was not opposed to trade, just neolib trade, which is totally untrue--there are big chunks of the left, whatever one calls them, that are actually opposed to trade.