I don't really like her or her politics but that issue will probably result in my voting for her as well. It's highly unlikely that the Republicans will nominate someone who isn't crazy.

The carbon tax should be set at a rate that offsets any cost the energy producers are externalizing to the rest of us. I think the best choice would be directing the money into energy research (efficiency or clean production), an tax credit would fine in principle but would likely end up mostly going to large corporations, in no case should it go into the general fund. With the rate at that level it shouldn't be excessively burdensome and consumers will make rational choices on how to adapt.

The current best estimate of this cost is $40/ton in 2015 dollars. At a rough estimate this would increase the cost of Gasoline about $0.18 a gallon for an average car. Obviously it would have a variety of follow on effects for energy prices and the price of goods though industry would scramble to implement newly positive NPV projects that increased energy efficiency or switch fuel sources as appropriate so once things settled down it wouldn't really be that big a deal. Perhaps we might all be about 2% worse off compared to now, which sucks but is better than letting things get out of control and then doing crazy things later.

Well, I can only comment on the ones in California, Oregon and the ones I hear on TV or the Internet. If that doesn't constitute the mainstream then I'm eager to hear where they are hidden.

That's a very broad grouping that includes people who understand science but don't agree with the reactionary solutions. I'd agree that the ones who are opposing the idea of global warming don't understand basic science.

I'd agree with that in principle, though many people who say that have no idea what they're talking about.

Putting the banks into receivership, wiping out the shareholders and selling off the assets to sounder banks to partially satisfy the bond holders while guaranteeing the depositors would have been the best solution for the middle class, it's also how capitalism is supposed to work. The implemented solution just acted as a giant wealth transfer to the rich.

Because as usual environmentalists let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Incremental improvement is a good thing, they need to learn to stop frothing at the mouth over nuclear and demand that we deploy as many as possible to replace the true evil which is coal plants.

Most environmental groups are advocating it.

There is a big difference between permanent immigrants and temporary workers. Solution, fast track citizenship for all H1B workers. If they're that great and that in demand we want them to stay.

Right, like the Soviet Union, that whole planned economy thing worked out really well for them.

Wait, that distinction is important why? We're certainly not original natives which was the point. Of course, I suppose you have to draw the time divider somewhere since the Indians migrated here too if you go back far enough. Still, I'd call the 1700s a bit soon to be drawing that line.

Wow, maybe I need to move to Denver! Nah, I looked at salary levels for available jobs and they're normal, apparently you're just using hyperbole.

Not really, the middle class actually owns a fairly small portion of the available financial assets. The top 20%, which by definition are not middle class, hold 85% of all financial assets. The largest asset for most middle class workers is their home.

Sure you can, you just need to remove all their other options first.

If you're screaming that the world is going to end due to carbon emissions and unwilling use the safest known form of power that is scalable and has low carbon emissions then yeah I'd call that irrational.

Anecdotal of course but my personal experience with the environmentalists I've met or heard speaking publicly suggest that this approach is rather rare. Usually I hear hysterical fear mongering combined with suggestions that would effectively end modern civilization for the majority of citizens. Apparently environmentalism and an understanding of basic math aren't particularly compatible.

Ok, so we slap a huge tax on it and now it's expensive. Result: Most people are now too poor to afford much of anything. Congratulations on massively increasing wealth disparity and lowering standards of living.

Yes, we should ensure that all energy production is forced to internalize its costs so that true economic decisions can be made, no that's not the same as cranking the prices so high no one does any of those things any more.