Well, oil will never be given awqay “free” ever again, I.T has passed its youth and is still retrenching to fabricate the next gen of chips and find “bussiness models” (“where do we put the $ meters?) that work for real and “U.S. Investment continues to be a null set.

So the field is wide open and perhaps it is availablefor th “green sector” to loose as well as to win.

It all does depend on the price of carbon to a great extent. $10-29$U.S. or 120-15- $U.S. per ton are the extremes I have seen pleas for. ….Big spread for the bookies amonst us….and for the financial planers of any sector that uses/produces carbon gases.

Personally, I’m more concerned with what iut shall mean to the third world who will not be there setting the agenda nor the price, but who will be paying a great price in the short term future. They wont be paying carbon taxes so much as not having the spent funds available. They will be the bypassed opportunities of investments in a sustainable world.

The Stockholm Concensus puts the carbon taxing schemes in a very different light than most proponents. It looks at the fact that a draconian agenda of emissions limits will put off the scenario coming in 2100 (sans taxes) until maybe 2110. Not much difference. Imagine being warned you are driving toward a wall and to respond, you slow from 100 mph to 90 mph. Same wall, same dead on impact.

There has to be a saner way. (Stockholm Concensus ???) Forest preservation, water and food security. Let the Valley worry about the valley.