I do some work with the Auto Alliance and I applaud Mr. Vines' comments. Edwards rode around in a motorcade in 2004 that included two armor-plated Suburbans and a handful of Ford Explorers. He also lives in a 28,000 square foot North Carolina estate, but I'm sure he'd be willing sacrifice that, right?

Though I must agree with Muskie and Mr. Vine's analasis of John Edwards hypocrisy his message is the right one. I sound like some raving tree hugger but its true that greenhouse gasses are warming our planet. Though having a private beach in Alaska during the winter sounds nice warmpth is not always great. If trends continue certain species, such as polar bears, will only exist in zoos while giant bugs will no longer only live near the equator. Colorado, where im from, will bearly have any snow to ski on in ten years from now and at least John Edwards knows what needs to be done even if he's not willing to do it. Its other people that are always on the attack and never giving into reality that are the problem

Mr. Vines's comment that Americans have freedom of choice is true, but at some point we must put our planet and future generations before comfort. I'm not suggesting that a law be passed requiring people to give up their Hummers, but I don't see anything wrong with candidates suggesting that the American people do something. After all, they have freedom of speech as well. As for the presidential motorcade, maybe the president should find some method of transportation equally secure but less gas- guzzling. I agree with BigB that we have to stop using SUV's before we can pick on other people. If we always wait for someone else to do things before us, our civilization will never accomplish anything, let alone our nation.

Much like the Goreacle, focusing on a problem gets peoples attention. Shouting down the skeptics also gets their attention, but it produces questions about why they are being called traitors, a term usually reserved for those that turn their back on a nation, not a theory. Those questions begin seeking the truth, which in the case of man made global warming is somewhat fuzzier than the U.N.'s unequivocal statment. If we use Edward Lorenz theory develop to predict weather patterns, rather than a consensus, we find out that there are just too many variables to limit weather patterns to a single variable, carbon dioxide. Therefore there must be an alternative reason for the consensus problem and solution to man made global warming. The Kyoto treaty and a statement by President Chirac provide the real insight for the man made global warming hyperbole "the first component of an authentic global governance." Bottom line, Greenland isn't a global thermometer, a global tax on carbon energy will put energy prices beyond the reach of existing third world economies, place elitist egalitarian control parameters on all other economies providing the first step in global governance and skeptics are not traitors.

We should heavily tax all energy equally. Make this "BTU tax" revenue-neutral as well as progressive (i.e., non-burdensome to the poor) by raising the personal exemption and the EIC.

Results:
1. Energy-hungry lifestyles that harm everyone are discouraged.
2. But people still retain freedom of choice. They can squander energy if they want to (and can afford to).
We don't need a "nanny state." That's unamerican. Use the tax code to set broad policy objectives, and let individual Americans work out the details for themselves.