This is very good. It does however always seem to me how unbelievably psychotic and depressing — (but that is NOT aimed at the writer of this article!!) — is the wide-ranging tendency to think the carbon dioxide problem is all about money (carbon taxes, carbon credits, rebates, make the polluters pay, etc). It’s not quite sane for everything to be filtered through the current obsessions with money-rules-all (as reflected in politics, which seems to think it has become economics, instead of being about society and the future in much wider terms). What if someone suggested that states should have homicide allowances, so that if there were fewer killings in Michigan, it would be OK for Illinois to have a few more? What if someone suggested allowances for child abuse or terrorist attacks? Surely it’s about values (and facts, and survival) — you don’t slap a tax on neighbours who poison their guests on the grounds that you don’t. It just isn’t acceptable for civilization. I do understand however that that approaches it from a somewhat idealistic principle-based perspective, rather than being real-world practical starting points to improve things. But we can’t let any ruthless or just blinkered industrialists think that it’s OK for them to get away with poisoning and pollution as long as they buy credits from somebody else or as long as they pay a pollution tax. It’s like teaching teenage drivers that they can kill people on the roads as long as they buy car accident credits or pay a road injury tax. It’s just wrong, not convertible into economic terms!