This quote if indeed true means we are already doomed, as very little decrease in the amount of co2 released by humans can be expected to occur in three years. We might as well tuck our head between our knees and kiss our “_ss” goodbye. This is clearly not a statment of science but of an alarmist

1) Investing in a low-carbon transportation infrastructure
2) RAISING GAS TAXES TO EUROPEAN STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTING A DYNAMIC TAX BASED ON A STATIC GAS PRICE FLOOR.

the second is unpalatable but is essentially MUCH more effective than a silly nebulous carbon tax, which really is just a very ugly way of trying to bankrupt the coal industry.

as for the others? lets go down the list

# Implementing an economy-wide cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases—-just implement gas taxes on the consumer end. its politically unpalatable, which is exactly why it will be more effective. plus carbon taxes are pretty much complete bullshit because you cant tax most activities that create carbon , like taxing a volcanoe or the clear cutting of a forest in brazil, or farting, or burning firewood for heat. carbon taxes are bunk and just another way for big government to tax big industries. theyre vague, hard to implement fairly, hard to implement at all, and just not effective at doing ANYTHING besides wasting everyones time. if you dont like coal, tax coal usage per ton, plain and simple. make a choice one way or the other, dont make a messy useless tax scheme. it will be like creating another alternative minimum tax scheme. and it will bother everyone and satisfy no one. not even the greens that support its establishment, because as a vague scheme vulnerable to legal challenges and lobbying the tidbits, it will be litigated in the scorched earth ground and it will be a waste of eveyrones time.

# Transforming our transportation network by

* Increasing vehicle fuel efficiency—CAFE is far too complex, just reform CAFE and make it MUCH MUCH more simple and see what happens at that point.

* Boosting the production and availability of low-carbon alternative fuels
the synfuels program in the 70s was a brutal epic failure. to be topped possibly only by the government supported ethanol boom to no where. government is terrible at innovation but needs to support innovation like a massive VC fund. when these fuels are actually useful and cheap enough the public will buy them. at the very very most, you can argue government needs to stop subsidizing the oil industry with tax incentives.

* Investing in a low-carbon transportation infrastructure

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. basically. this means government investing in the electricity grid. putting HUGE money into R&D into basic physics as well as power electronic engineering, super conducting technology, and then into actually enlarging the capacity and robustness of our current grid. it must also support projects to make it easier for all startup utilities and small companies to get on and off the grid and to have access to all private data that is necessary to most effectively use the grid. the GRID like our water system , needs to be thought of as a public resource and for people to use it as much as possible without being restricted by the machinatinos of private industry. that said, the electric utillities need support from government more than any other industry in this new bid to dramatically expand as well as green over our energy system for producing electricity. this will spill over to the alt transportation fuel industry as well.

# Overhauling our electricity industry by

* Improving the efficiency of energy production and use—good but really a small part of our plan. we cant all ride bicycles.
* Increasing production and consumption of renewable energy—well duh. yea this is a big one, but its so obvious its not really even saying anything. i can at least draw out of it “massive governmnet investment and tax incentive program for solar, wind, wave, and deep heat-rock technologies”

* Promoting the use of “advanced coal” through carbon capture-and-storage systems——trapping carbon from coal factories is much more likely to do more damage than it creates. this goal is by far one of the stupidest most absurd goals of the green movement and goes against the most obvious observatinos of the vast vast amount of research conducted on toxicity and misery of carbon trapping. lets first figure out how to dispose of our nuclear fuel before we attempt to trap carbon. how about that as a disposal goal?