'Polluters pay' is best

[xchrom]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/ND04Dj05.html

Steven Chu, the US Secretary of Energy and a Nobel laureate, has argued that what the world needs is a handful of Nobel-level breakthroughs in energy technology. They sure would come in handy in the fight to avoid the worst consequences of global warming. But counting on breakthroughs is a crapshoot. We cannot rely on a miracle to navigate away from our current head-on collision with the planet.

That hasn't stopped Breakthrough Institute co-founders Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger from arguing - as they did in a recent article for Yale Environment 360 - that technology research will stop the runaway train of climate change.

You don't have to bother limiting emissions through a carbon price
or cap, they say, because energy innovation will come to the rescue.

Frankly, this is bunk. Reasonable people may disagree about what policies will best fight climate change. But climate science makes one thing clear: The planet must limit carbon emissions, or face a bleak future. And we will never get there unless we make policy changes that align market incentives with this goal. It's Economics 101.

There's no way to avoid making polluters pay for the damage they cause, or they'll keep causing it. That either starts with a price on carbon or, ideally, a cap on carbon emissions.

[RobertEarl]

1. 3 ways

First is to conserve and cause power plants to shutdown due to lack of demand. Doable.

Two is to develop solar systems that supply over fifty percent of the needed electricity for house and cars, office buildings and light industrial. Very doable.

Third charge triple the rates to finance CO2 capture and pay for decommissioning of nuke plants. Has to happen.

[joshcryer]

2. Ahh, the nerd rapture will save us all.

(Nerd rapture is to refer to the singularity or technological advancement, etc.)