A "Carbon Tax" is not the way to solve the problems, and this is the solution that has been peddled by Al Gore and countless others trying to implement Agenda 21.
The first Cap-and-Trade program in the US was under Ronald Reagan and came out of his administration.
The Clean Air Act of 1990 includeds GHWB's cap-and-trade proposal for sulfur pollution.
GWB included a cap-and-trade proposal in his "clear skys" bill.
While running for president in 2008 McCain proposed to reduce global warming pollution via a cap-and-trade program.
I'm sorry. Tell me again how taxation (which is what cap-and-trade does) is a "Al Gore" idea.
Cap and Trade is not the same thing as a Carbon Tax. They're two distinct approaches to the same problem. Under a Carbon Tax, a company could emit unlimited carbon as long as they paid the tax. Under Cap and Trade, their carbon emissions would be limited to their "cap". They could then buy rights to emit more carbon from other companies, reduce the amount that they're emitting sell their rights to emission, or offset their emissions in some way (planting trees, etc.).
Cap and Trade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Carbon Tax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
I think a Carbon Tax is the wrong approach because it does not explicitly limit emissions in any way; as long as its still profitable, emissions will occur. Cap and Trade, on the other hand, explicitly limits industry-wide emissions and requires individual companies to set a value on their limited emissions in the free market.
That said, UN Agenda 21, as mentioned by a previous poster, has nothing to do with which of these approaches is better.
theblaze.com's sole source is the Alliance for Natural Health's article which grossly misrepresent the FDA's case, as you can see if you read the FDA's motion for summary judgement:
The article is about as useful as if it had come from the National Enquirer.