Mike,

First of all, judging by your comments, I seriously doubt that you read past the words "excerpts from [the] Wall Street Journal."

Secondly -- let's just assume for the moment that you actually did read AND could understand the rest of my post -- if it sounds so good to you, perhaps, you are therefore willing to pay my share of the increased taxes that will be passed on to the citizens/consumers. And since this massive re-distribution scheme will lower our GDP by a significant amount (and hence future tax revenues), perhaps you are willing to have your tax liability increased exponentially to take care of the difference. And perhaps you are willing to give up Social Security and Medicare and whatever else you will expect from the government before 2050, due to the reduced tax revenues, in order to "save the planet."

Third, a simple question -- what, pray tell, are the "more reliable sources" that you have turned to for your reading? I would love to know what sources "guide" you -- I'm curious since I read (on a daily basis) and enjoy such a "pathologically misguided source" as the WSJ.

By posting the WSJ excerpt, I thought that it might instigate some intelligent discussion of what extent of government involvement people perceive is necessary in order to do something about global warming. Hopefully, someone else can offer something other than Mike's banal comment: "It all sounds pretty good to me."

Barbara