There's a lot of hub-bub going on around about the cap-and-trade solution to cut greenhouse gases and fight global warming. It "creates wealth" from absolutely intangible nothings (sound familiar?) and will be placed in the hands of Wall Street traders (sound familiar?) in a free market solution (sound familiar?) that will spur innovation in energy-saving technologies (sound familiar?). It is also an overly complicated system that relies on the market being able to regulate itself (sound familiar?) and puts the fate of the system into the hands of the oh-so-obviously morally-driven Wall Street traders who never compromise what is best for the people (or the economic stability of the entire world) to make more money.
Or, as the article outlines, there's a much simpler system that forces innovation, doesn't "create wealth," and would moderately benefit roughly 80% of the population of this country. It will drive up energy costs for the common schmoe, but the common schmoe will receive a yearly dividend from Uncle Sam to help pay for the higher energy costs. Industries that pollute pay a fee to do so and are forced to innovate to cut costs, lest their share-price be decimated in the market by those capable of innovation. Oh, and the fate of the entire system isn't placed into the hands of traders who have proven themselves willing to sacrifice the entire global economy if it will make them more money. But then again, I can be a bit of a cynic.