microbox writes: "t is axiomatic to some that cap-and-trade will wreck the economy and promote the type of corruption that both extremes of the political specturm decry. Vitreol and name-calling aside, both the science and the economics come down to an empirical question. For those who do not know, six US states have implemented cap-and-trade since 2001. On average, these states have faired as well or better than the rest of the USA according to standard economic indicators, and quantitative studies now show a direct economic gain to the region from cap-and-trade. Are conservatives too invested in nay-saying cap-and-trade to make an about face on the issue (e.g., Tony Abbott's expensive direction action alternative), or is the issue too polarized? When does empirical evidence make a difference to peoples beliefs?"