Perhaps the Mammoths were too preoccupied trying to "save the earth" when it was themselves that needed saving!

Rarely have I wished to have mod points as much as I do now to mod parent up.

Pollution is an externality. By not internalizing the cost (through a revenue-neutral tax), we are subsidizing the polluter. Yes, level the playing field and let the market figure it out.

At $24/ton CO2, the price of electricity (100% coal) would increase $0.024/kWh. For natural gas derived electricity, $0.013. Assuming a fuel mix of 50% coal, 25% gas, 25% CO2 free, then that's an increase of $0.015, assuming no market-based substitution. And if revenue neutral, that money would be returned to tax payers.

Perhaps someone can explain why we should continue to subsidize coal?

Yes, but in general we don't go to heroic lengths to save them. People are intrinsically motivated to work in their own best interest. Which is why "save the earth" isn't a message that resonates with anyone other than the environmentalists.

Headline is hyperbolic. Astroid sized impacts aren't going to destroy Earth. It'll be fine. It's the humans for which we need to be concerned.

This was never something for the environment. It was always another subsidy for farmers and Big Oil.

You clearly would not be a candidate for this car then. This is a luxury sports sedan. Generally luxury sports sedans get well below 25 MPG.

I'd also suspect, if your electricity is $0.18, then your gas is likely higher than $3.50.

It also appears that the Tesla roadster gets 4 miles / kWh and some super-efficient electric cars are above 10 miles per kWh. So yes, the calculations are very sensitive to the inputs.

As a matter of policy, I'd prefer to see the (US) government get out of the business of subsidizing oil and picking winners and let the market produce whatever the consumer demands. I think we'd see a lot more people (in the US) driving cars like yours -- 45 MPG.

Perhaps the most important question is what is the all-in cost per mile of operation and how many miles to I need to operate it annually for it to make financial sense. For a SWAG: Assume $0.10/kWh, 3 miles/kWh, or $0.033/mile for electricity, vs. 25 MPG, $3.50/gallon, $0.14/mile for gasoline. Effective difference of $0.10/mile. At a US average annual distance of 12,000 miles, the fuel cost difference is $1,200. Electric vehicle advocates also suggest that you save another $200/yr on oil changes, oil filters, etc.. If you assume an average ownership period of 10 years, that's a $14,000 savings in OpEx. Of course, currently the car is more expensive, you're limited (slightly) in range, and there are (currently) limited number of places where you can fast-charge (15-20 minutes full charge).

Since when do Slashdot readers bet against technology?

On what do you base your assertion that [insert climate action] will wreck the economy?

From a passionate moderate standpoint, I think the scientists have done a better job demonstrating a causal relationship between our CO2 emissions and climate change than the skeptics have done in demonstrating that doing anything about climate change will wreck the global economy.

Regarding (b), a less expensive (administratively speaking) would be to apply the tax at the point of extracting the previously sequestered carbon. In this manner, there are fewer inspectors required and orders of magnitude less complexity for the market.

The most compelling implementations of this that I've heard are to make it revenue-neutral and phase it in slowly. Ultimately however, a price still needs to be determined. In the US, the analysis I've seen suggests that given our fuel mix, a $15/ton CO2 tax would result in ~6% increase in electricity prices assuming no fuel switching. If phased in slowly to permit technology improvements and fuel switching, it should be much less.

I have a blackberry curve on T-Mobile. I use UMA over Comcast internet quite successfully. I do not pay any extra for this capability, though it might be part of my rate plan.