Revenue neutral carbon taxes have been successfully used to reduce the amount of dirty electricity being used (by raising the price of produce), and still leave home owners with more money in their pocket. They drive economic growth (energy innovation, home modernization, grid modernization), and they also cause economic harm (fossil fuel interests are losers). When you tally up the growth and harm, they come feakily close to zero. So, on average, it costs nothing, but Koch and Koch will need a new business model.

There are always winners and loser when incentive structures change. The real question is who is being subsized by the status quo, and is it fair. Fighting AGW will produce winners and losers but the consensus among economists it that it will have a negligble effect on overall economic growth. That means we can move away from fossil fuels and, on average, we will still be as rich in the future even if AGW is a hoax. If it isn't a hoax, then we will be a lot richer in the future if the USA still keeps all the naval bases and city facilities and property that are at sea level -- to name merely one certain economic downside of warming.

A revenue neutral pollution tax can be used to compensate the losers, other than the fossil fuel industry, who are enjoying huge negative externalities right now. No wonder Koch and Koch are spending so much money shaping political perceptions on the issue.

It is a fallacy that we must sacrifice much to fight climate change. The real alarmists are the economic alarmists. (Sure there are far left weirdos who use AGW as cover for their anti-capitalist economics, but their lunacy does not reflect the reality of the problem.) The consensus from economists is that a lot can be done with zero net effect to the economy. This is not just technology. We must change incentive structures that are already biased toward drawing down on fossil fuels. (Remember, we are not paying the true cost of our energy, for a lot of complex reasons.) The technology is already ready, with wind energy already having a total cost of ownership lower than coal. Solar is more expensive, for now, but will soon be cheaper. The only reason why we burn coal is because it is subsidized. Thus, pricing in the cost of pollution will lower the overall energy costs of the nation, and also drive economic growth. This is because most of the world is using revenue neutral taxes -- taking money from polluters and then creating incentives for housing and grid modernization. We already have more people working in renewable energy than in coal in the USA. Sure renewables do not supply reliable baseline energy, but that is a grid problem that is being solved by technology. You can look up the solutions if you are interested. The main obstacle in the USA is the nimby crowd. (The USA needs more high voltage transmission between parts of the country.)

That can pretty much be applied to many of business practices of quite a few of the big players. But as I wrote, competition is good for the consumer (us). I'd rather see them working to help develop it further than trying to kill it off.

The only one likely to have anything useful to say about The Ribbon is the full time writer, analyst, clerical worker or office manager --- and he or she is isn't posting to Slashdot.

It seems to me that either way you're paying for getting f*cked.

We've know the solution for a long time. Breed less.

You don't get the "morally dubious master" either way? I've been robbed!

Given a choice when answering about what you do for a living at a social get-together, which is cooler:

a) I'm a mathematician
or
b) I work for a three-letter government spy agency. Sorry, my work is classified. I can't tell you more or I'd have to kill you. Now please, try some of this wine which I assure you is not drugged.

Hint - Go watch True Lies.

Even the poster's ideas of what to do are obsolete.

A "computer" today doesn't mean a desktop. Good luck taking an iPad apart and putting it together. Or a smartphone. Or a laptop. In a cost-saving move, ram is now soldered in place. And you can't change the cpu, the video card, the sound card, and eve changing the keyboard is a real b*tch.

Better to spend more time teaching the basics of reading, writing, and math. And get them outside once in a while to play because most of them think "play" means tapping a screen or thumbing a button.

Most of the kids experiences will be with tablets or smartphones - forget about upgrades. Newer laptops are the same story. Ram soldered in place, no place to mount a second hdd, and you can't change the video or audio or cpu, so teaching them that will be totally useless except to work on old junk.

Don't be evil.