The larger point, that otherwise effective policies can fail for political reasons, while ineffective ones get supported, seems all too true.

Higher energy taxes need not impose a special bottom-line burden on the poor, let alone “put them under”. Energy or carbon taxes could be rebated in some form (perhaps directly, perhaps through reducing other taxes) on a progressive basis. Money is fungible.

As you say, a carbon tax won’t reduce everyone’s carbon footprint equally, if at all, and will certainly effect no moral transformation of the rich, whom we will always have with us, to twist a phrase. At best it could better dun disproportionate users (Al Gore may be among them) for their disproportionate use. (As a frequent air traveler I’m in no position to preen, BTW, or to escape carbon taxes myself.)

In any event, the same properties apply to all taxes: they discourage, rather than prevent, any behavior or activity under taxation. To prevent something you have to outlaw it — an alternative neither liberals nor conservatives generally care for.

On the matter of fleet-average mileage standards: Yes, focusing on the average of anything doesn’t (and can’t, mathematically) prevent bad behavior at the margin. But I see no alternative (e.g., G-men seizing low-mileage vehicles) that would be either practical or politically palatable, even to me — let alone to the government-dissers. So I’d keep gas guzzlers legal, but tax the b*j*s*s out of them, whether directly or through higher fuel prices.

IMO the feds should focus on big-picture goals, like average fuel economy and total carbon emissions, and leave it mainly to other entities to innovate and cope creatively with broad policies. A carbon tax would be an excellent start.

The question I still have about a carbon tax is the ability for high income people to “buy” carbon credits to reduce their “footprint” rather than cut back consumption. A good example of this is Al Gore and his mega-estate. It has the appearance of whitewashing the actual problem.

On the electrical production side, we can see the conflict going on in Dakota county between animal preservationists and the renewable energy industry just to erect some windmills. I don’t see how all the money spent on research and litigation can ever be recouped in the lifespan of a wind farm. As Pogo once said, “We have seen the enemy, and he is us.” As long as we continue with the mindset of the many conforming to the desires of the few, and that is on both sides, then I don’t think we will come up with a solution before our demise.

What has happened since March 2010?
1) the cap-and-trade bill died in the Senate. Obama was not willing to risk another bruising and uncertain fight after health care. I don’t think he could have gotten enough Democratic votes to pass it, even though at one point he seemed to have 5 GOP votes. Anyway, it is dead.
2) in the 2010 mid-term elections the Tea Party and Republican right made opposition to any climate bill (especially “cap-and-tax”) a litmus test for election. That is even more true in this presidential election cycle. Ironically, past support of it is one of the things dragging Newt down now. Anyway, among the GOP candidates, only Jon Huntsman has clearly accepted the scientific evidence.
3) Both 2010 and 2011 have seen huge number of extreme weather events. Although individual events cannot be attributed to global warming with any causal certainty, the international scientific community is beginning to link weather patterns with climate change. See
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/science/earth/un-panel-finds-climate-change-behind-some-extreme-weather-events.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/science/earth/record-jump-in-emissions-in-2010-study-finds.html.
There is lots more on this subject.
4) The climate change conference in Durban, SA in Dec. kept the hope for a treaty with limits after 2020 alive, but just barely. Almost all of the additional CO2 is now coming from China, India, and other rapidly developing countries, and they won’t agree to any caps unless we do. So we are stuck in a deadly game of chicken.
5) Congress is at its most dysfunctional now. The GOP is trying to tie approval of the Keystone pipeline to extension of tax cuts--forcing Obama to either veto it (in which case they will hammer him as a job-killer) or let it go through (in which case the environmentalists will go ballistic).
Do we really want to discuss this???

But rather than discuss whether climate change is man-made or not, let’s assume it is (I’m a believer) and focus on what should be done. Here’s an article to start it off:

In last Saturday’s NT Times: Environmentalists Get Down to Earth

Faced with setbacks on top of declining and graying memberships, the biggest conservation groups are reshaping their missions in a time of generational transition. The last 15 months have included executive changes at the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and the Audubon Society, among others. The head of the Wilderness Society will step down next year.

On the strategy front, some of these groups are becoming more circumspect in campaigning against global warming, mindful of mixed public sentiment. A three-prong approach is emerging: fight global warming by focusing on immediate, local concerns; reinvigorate the grass roots through social media and street protests; and renew an emphasis on influencing elections.

Not only do the trees emit CO2, but they also are prevented from filtering the gas.

The lesson is to work with our environment as soon as possible and not wait for the outcome of years and years of study and argument. People all over the world often do it well…http://www.designboom.com/weblog/cat/9/view/9253/earth-architecture-handmade-school-bangladesh.html