What the hell is wrong with you denialists!?

Every single one of those ideas is an intelligent step to wean us off pollution-causing fossil fuels. Why do you have a problem with that?

1. Carbon freeze: Tough in the short run but doable in maybe 5-10 years. A generation to reduce 90%: Very ambitious but should we aim low? The TB idea: a freeze by 2525 (if man is still alive).

2. Reduce payroll tax and increase CO2 tax: The first part is right out of the (old) republican handbook. And why not create a pollution tax? It is an externality after all. Any rightwingers following me?

3. Low income supplement: Why not make it easier for the poor to protect the environment? Hell make it easier for the rich too while we're at it.

4. Move up Kyoto successor: Probably not realistic given the current political power structure but a good idea nonetheless. The sooner this problem is tackled the better chance it won't be too late.

5. Stop coal: Again, tough politically but there are times when tough choices need to be made. We can throw our children to the firing line in the war on terror but can't cut coal burning production?

6. ELECTRANET: What a great idea? What are the arguments against this?

7. CAFE standards: Wow fuel efficiency! What a radical idea... Seriously, let's set some fricken standards here.

8. Light bulbs: We have the technology. We can rebuild them... duh! A cheap and easy thing to do to save energy consumption.

9. Connie Mae: Absolutely brilliant idea. Helping create new buildings that are non polluting. The government already helps finance building construction. Why not make them non polluting?

10. SEC require disclosure: An increase in the cost of doing business, but also bringing the issue into corporate accoutability and awareness.

Along with saving the planet, almost all of this will also reduce our dependence on islamic oil. Maybe you care about that if you don't care about the planet our children and grandchildren will live on.