Hmm...funny enough I actually had a seminarium regarding this very topic a while ago. (I study international bussines). We agreed that emission credits trade is a best way of "internalizing negative externalities"
To quote Mankiw:
"Negative externalities lead market to produce a larger quantity than is socially desirable. To remedy the problem, the goverment can internlize the externality by taxing goods that hav negative externalities and subsidizing goods that have positive externalities"
Education is typical example of good that yields positive externality.
Or to put it this way: Let's suppose that aluminium factory emit pollution. The use of tax is called
internalizing the externality beacuse it gives buyers and sellers in the market an incentive to take account of the external effects of their actions. Aluminium producers would take costs of pollution into account when deciding how much aluminium to supply beacuse the tax would make them pay for these external costs.
As far as I can see it, all this boils down to question: is excessive CO emission an negative externality or not?
I know little about climate and greenhouse effect and when confronted with something I know very little about I tend to turn to the experts.
And if there are different "schools" of belief I tend to believe in one that isn't skewed by religion/industry/politics but is doing it's research in strictly scientific way.
Somehow, I believe Scientific American has more authorithy in this question than some obscure writeup on "Tech Central Station" ("where free markets meet technology" - sic)
There is lot's of missinformation on internet and there are some people that will loose on Kyoto agreement. My observation is that Slacker has certain political agenda that he desperately want's to share with us. This kind of (lobbyist) writeups go hand in hand with his ideology so he's obviously using them as "a proof" that global warming is a lie.
C'mon guys...you can do better that that!
