If we were to take the subject seriously, then it should be that those who benefit most should pay those most harmed by the actions for having the benefits shifted in their interest. (Personally I've want to move to an area that's actually rather cold and if we assumed human influences on the miniscule levels of CO2 in the atmosphere had much of any significant impact on temperatures, then I'd be one of the people harmed by such actions to cut CO2. We can assume the agricultural industries would take a double hit, one from lowered CO2 levels and the second for higher energy costs. Of course, Bush and buddies will collect on the higher oil prices - how much of the world oil resources are in one way or another under their control?)

So anyway, I'll be waiting for my CO2 check (and hopefully it will include some compensation for the increased energy costs also. Might as well toss in some extra for the fact that a lot of alternative energy sources, like nuclear energy, are close to being off limits as well)

(... why would the assumption be made that rich people would be somehow harmed less by cutting CO2 than poor people? It's a scam, they just a reason to go around and invade people around the world in the name of environmental protection)

That would be the idea way the USA gov would want to deal with the problem so it must be absolutly awful of an idea.