The latter makes a strong and passionate case for putting a price on carbon (Mr Friedman is known to favor the Carbon Tax; he doesn’t hide it here). His main point is that about the only thing the US has going vis-à-vis China is entepreneurial response to challenge and opportunity. Strangely, Mr Friedman fails to push the Carbon Tax as hard as I feel he could have and should have.

The first item reports on how a neighborhood’s “walkability” supports real estate “values” (or what we hoi polloi call “selling prices”). The Times offers an Internet site into which one can plug an address and find its “walkability index” ― a number from 100 (perfect; everything is close at hand) to 0 (you need a car to go for a walk). I tried it out on a few addresses I know; it lacks a quality index on neighborhood features, but as a start and an approximation, it’s OK+. But it makes it clear: a home in a highly walkable neighborhood is a safer investment than in a less-walkable alternative. Thus, a neighborhood that places less demand on fuel consumption offers good investment opportunities, even with minimal escalation in transportation-fuel prices. (Unfortunately, the article fails to mention that less-walkable neighborhoods can be improved significantly (albeit not to perfection) without major capital expenditure.) Neighborhoods’ walkability will only improve as a result of Carbon Tax-with-Dividend implementation (which would provide people with the funds for such improvements).

In summary, the Carbon Tax encourages reduction in greenhouse gas emissions at both the high-tech capital-intensive investment level and at the lifestyle & everyday-living level.

Yes, reward those “who make the change.” We’re advocating an upstream carbon tax on coal, oil and gas producers (which as you note, would be passed through to consumers), with “recycling” of revenue to households. We suggest recycling revenue either via a reduction in payroll taxes as Rep. John Larson’s bill proposes, or via a direct distribution as climate scientist James Hansen advocates. The net result would be to “reward those who choose to make the change.” Only those who used more than average amounts of fossil fuels would pay more. Energy conservation, efficiency and alternative energy could gain a foothold.

Please see our overview here.

I’m not a fan of the current cap-and-trade plan either, yet I do see a much bigger benefit to a carbon market bubble, than an overall tax. If people can profit from reducing CO2, there is much more incentive to do so.

The idea of combining the two seems to be the most logical. Create a trading market for carbon, enact a carbon tax based on the amount of CO2 produced, then let the public decide if they want to reduce their emissions or simply pay more. Give Joe America the option to either pay an additional $X,XXX in tax for his C02 per year, or offset that CO2 to avoid the tax. If Joe America changed his lifestyle enough that he is 100% carbon neutral, then he should be rewarded for that. Let him sell offsets on the open market and profit from his change in lifestyle so that others will follow.

Both systems alone will do very little to reduce overall C02 individually. The public HAS to be onboard with whatever system is initiated and we all know a new tax is not going to go over well. The only real solution to this mess and the only way to make a significant global change in C02 emissions is to reward those who chose to make the change with money.

Why Nuclear? It isn’t the magic bullet some make it out to be, but it is low carbon, and thus it should play an increased role in the future.

Your thoughts about how to move forward without an international agreement are inspirational. If carbon taxes work as well as we think they will, bold leadership by a subset of countries will bring the rest of the world along. Bravo!

Separately, I would venture that in a Carbon Tax-plus-Dividend world no special privileges be granted the “less-developed” countries. First, it would too readily mask the already-masked special privileges granted to the privileged in the “over-developed” countries. Besides, why should the privileged in the former set of countries have untaxed access to SUV’s, air conditioning, etc. that are taxed to their peers in the latter set of countries? (Disclosure: I have much extended family in the former set.)

Companies on the other hand would have to look very closely at energy efficiency and carbon switching to remain competitive.

A small portion of the Fee could be used to help displaced workers and fund international programs to help developing countries cope with climate change.

At the same time all subsidies and tax breaks for the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries needs to be phased out. These companies can afford to do their own R&D. If they are competitive in a low carbon world they will survive, if not, o-well.