Reply #29: I believe Obama has at least suggested he would consider a carbon tax, & ...

[cloudythescribbler]

he certainly has talked about the less progressive but still perhaps effective approach of a carbon cap-and-trade system. Since I advocate not only aiming for NET NEUTRALITY, as with the UN CN Net (Climate Neutrality Network -- United Nations Environmental Program), but NET NEGATIVE GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS, clearly there is a need to go beyond a cap-and-trade system and soon.

There are various feasibility problems with a carbon tax that would be sufficient to actually impact consumption/emissions, just as with a gasoline tax sufficient to substantially reduce demand (which hasn't plummeted even with skyrocketing gasoline prices) -- in particular, these measures are apt to raise a firestorm of protest, and might even broaden the 'coalition-of-resistance' to the transformations needed in the world's energy system(s). Another problem with the carbon tax, it is my understanding, is that the relative contributions of carbon from coal are SO MUCH HIGHER than for oil or natural gas that effectively it would have to be prohibitively high to impact fossil fuels other than coal.
(A focus on the Greenhouse Effect as well as other policy foci tend toward the EXPANSION in the near term of natural gas usage, as it contributes far less carbon to the atmosphere, using present technology, than coal or even oil). Then the issue of natural gas prices come into play (as the reverse could happen with coal).

But there are alternative approaches that might be considered, such as a HUGE tax-and-subsidy program at the point-of-purchase of new automotive vehicles (including SUVs and many light trucks). This idea, which I advocate, would provide, after a certain date, a LARGE subsidy, possibly $3000 or more on EACH vehicle purchased that gets more than 60 mph or '60-mph-equivalent' (factoring in the use of fuels, eg in a hybrid car or the fossil fuel consumption to produce alternatives). Then a substantial amount, say $150, would be subtracted for every mph/mph equivalent (mphe), so that at (in this example) 40 mphe there would be no net tax or net subsidy. But new vehicles getting LESS than 40mphe would be TAXED at $150 for each mphe less than 40, and new SUVs would have to BOTH radically increase mileage AND pay a stiff tax. People who want to avoid the tax (paid by purchasers of new vehicles, so generally hitting the more prosperous 2/3 of Americans, to begin with) could buy fuel efficient cars, including those I've discussed on other threads that run on hydrogen (Magnesium Hydride -- MgH2 -- canisters). This targeted approach would radically drive up mileage, would be more flexible than trying to negotiate alterations in CAFE standards, and would provide an incentive to PURCHASORS as well as MANUFACTERERS to opt for more fuel efficient vehicles. Note that, over time, the mphe standards and the $/mphe tax could later be raised even higher, as required, to reach a system where carbon emissions are eliminated.

Frankly, Nader is likely to get SO LITTLE attention to his issue concerns in the mainstream media (less than Kucinich or Jesse Jackson when he ran) that his main importance by far remains as a potential spoiler.