I do not know if this is accurate (I have tracked down all the references), but I can see why some folks would consider him a bit dishonest:
"McIntyre is, according to the Wall Street Journal, a "semiretired Toronto minerals consultant" who has spent "two years and about $5,000 of his own money trying to double-check the influential graphic" known as the "hockey stick" that illustrates a reconstruction of average surface temperatures in the Northern hemisphere, created by University of Virginia climatologist Michael Mann.He does not have an advanced degree and has published two articles in the journal Energy and Environment, which has become a venue for skeptics and is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals.[1] McIntyre was also exposed for having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a "strategic advisor." [2]He is the former President of Dumont Nickel Inc., and was President of Northwest Exploration Company Limited, the predecessor company to CGX Energy Inc. As of 2003, he was the strategic advisor of CGX Energy Inc. He has also been a policy analyst at both the governments of Ontario and of Canada. [3]At the 2007 Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union, McIntyre gave a joint presentation on hurricanes and climate change with Roger Pielke Jr.[4]"
"Al Gore has interests in carbon trading companies, for example. "
Searching for that, the first two pages of articles were all from extremely right wing sites/bloggers. This seems like it has been spun a certain way by the right.....
"(tag your paper with a Global Warming angle and you're more likely to get it published, or to get funding for your research in the first place)."
You have any data on that? I sure couldn't find any, not even from conservative sites.
"The amount spent by Environmental groups on this issue dwarfs that spent by fossil fuel lobbyists."...........
Even a cursory search turns up tons of evidence refuting that... claim. That is just a completely false statement.
However, in addition we can already build self-modifying learning machines. They are called neural nets and have been around and improving for over a decade.
We can also simulate the analog properties of the electrical signals in the brain within a digital computer. We can simulate dendrite growth and neuron changes.
I'm surprised that in this era where many of us use virtual machines, that some folks cannot conceive of software that simulates biology accurately.
"The brain is a self-modifying learning machine. Until you can build a self-modifying learning machine, you can have all the structure you want, it won't be functionally equivalent to a human brain."
That is called a neural net. We already have them.
If our models of the brain become better and better, we can simulate all that neuron rewiring/dendrite growth/learning within software. Or, extract the functional equivalent of that growth/change into a model, that while not mimicking the biology perfectly, is equivalent in its output.
There is a ton of accelerating research on modeling the human brain at a very fine level of detail. The 'actual number of neurons', wiring, etc.. is the easy part. The hard part, is the modeling of what is actually going on, and there is a great amount of progress in that area.
Basically, the models of each region of the brain have improved as each scanning technology has improved. MRI's, etc.. are able to scan at a smaller scale as tech improves, and researchers are able to watch actual neurons doing 'things' as controlled input is delivered to either animals or humans.
There are also many invasive techniques, like physically hooking up wires to primate brains, and watching how the impulses change when the primate is trained to do X, etc..
Whether or not you agree with this author's conclusions, his book has an excellent summary (as of 2005:)) of the various modeling efforts and there level of success http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity_is_Near
No one has the complete brain modeled yet, but enough of the pieces are being worked on, that it wouldn't surprise me at all to see them come together into a unified model a decade from now.
"Can you elaborate why the GP is wrong" "blind faith in certain propositions (God exists, he created the universe, he created humans in his image etc etc)"
I replied directly to the GP also, but I felt like responding to you, mainly because of your second quoted statement. The GP stated that religion is 100% incompatible with science. That is a rather broad sweeping statement that dismisses centuries of philosophical work. There are quite a few ways in which religion and science can co-exist.
Lets take 'God exists' for instance. OK, lets say he does, is all powerful, and can hide from us forever if he/she wants. As a scientist, am I somehow corrupted by believing that there is something that our sensors and tools cannot detect? Would this prevent me from objectively measuring something that my tools can see? What is the problem with believing some presence exists beyond my capacity to measure, yet being able to measure something in front of my scientifically?
There is no conflict of interest as long as someone can clearly make a distinction between what is measurable and what is not. The background radiation of the universe is measurable, while God's presence is not. Done. Compatible.
As long as religion focuses on the 'why' and science on the 'how', there is no problem. It is only when the extreme members of any given religion begin to venture into the realm of the 'how', does religion become problematic for science.
I've always found that the people "on top" in an mmorpg, are those that stay ahead of the knowledge curve.
You gain that knowledge by researching, socializing/networking, and coming up with effective strategies to use that knowledge.
The advancement system really doesn't matter when talking about what takes more skill. Either a level based or skill-point based system could be implemented requiring equal skill to play, assuming the learning curve and required knowledge set was equally large.
Yet another reason to not make this overly complex. Making pollution a commodity just has all sorts of wrong written all over it.
Just put a cap in place. A small one. And lower it over time. We monitor, regulate, and limit water pollution. Carbon pollution should be no different.
It is not like we had massive water outages and a destroyed economy when the clean water act was passed. Things worked out, businesses adjust and compete with each other given the new regulation.
It is my understanding that the single largest problem with the European plan, were offsets.
"Meanwhile, politicians also opened the door wider to so-called carbon offsets, which allow companies to meet their emissions-Âreduction commitments by financing rainforest conservation, renewable-energy investments, and other low-carbon projects in developing countries."
Costs went up due to putting any price on carbon emission. It cost a company 0 dollars before to pollute, now it costs X. That is the downside to consumers, one we'll need to live with until more power can be produced cheaply by renewables.
However, by allowing offsets (A company does not need to change its ways, just plant some trees), there was no incentive to move towards non-carbon polluting energy sources.
The European plan is basically the worst of both worlds: carbon now costs 'something', so energy now costs more, combined with a nice loophole allowing a company to never have to change any of its carbon based energy sources, thereby guaranteeing that the cost of energy would never drop.
This is why I am in favor of pure regulation, similar to the clean water act: 1. Caps that very slowly clamp down on carbon emissions over time. 2. Regulated by monitors similar to water pollutants 3. Companies that don't get their ass in gear and start changing, get fined heavily.
Will this make the cost of energy go up? Yup. However "cap and trade + offsets" does also, only we have zero environmental gain, and zero renewable infrastructure gain.
They could pay more, by having a different tax bracket due to their weight or type of business.
That is a major advantage of a GPS system. A flat tax on gas means that a person who commutes super long distances using say, 100 gallons of fuel a month, is paying the same tax as a huge shipping truck using 100 gallons of fuel a month.
The truck should pay more obviously. Easy to do with a GPS system ranked by vehicle type.
What would be unfair, is if all cars went pure electric, and politicians jacked up fuel prices to make up for the lack of income, making trucks and farmers pay it all.
Because trucking, farming, etc.. do not have any commercially viable electric or hybrid options. They might in the future, but in the meantime, you're asking those industries to pick up the tax tab for you.
I don't mind having a tax on fuel: it does promote efficiency. I just don't think we can raise it in response to fuel use going down. We need to additionally tax based on miles, but leave the fuel tax the same.
The only problem with simply raising the gas tax, is that is shifts the burden of the gas tax onto businesses that do not have the advantage of hybrids/electric, etc.. that an individual person would have:
So trucking, farming, etc.. would be 'asked' to pick up the tab that individuals are no longer paying.
In Portland Oregon, most of our grocery stores sell locally grown beef that comes from many smaller independent 'free range' cattle ranches. Likewise with vegetables.
The college I work for contracts all their beef from 1-2 organic/free range farmers also. In progressive cities, the trend is very much to support local responsible agriculture and farming.
Across the nation, in terms of bulk fast food, etc.. the mass producers are the mainstay of course, but even fast food is changing.
In Portland, one of our most popular fast food franchises is very progressive, only buying local products, only using wind power, recycling all their waste, offers seasonal food based on what is being harvested, etc...
I've seen more than 1 automatic windows update break server software running on the system. I've also seen Solaris, various distro's of Linux, HP-UX, and countless other operating systems break software running on them when a patch is applied.
Because of that, any sane system admin will test patches before applying them. If you discover that a patch breaks mission critical software on your test systems, you cannot apply the patch. You must wait for either your vendor or Microsoft to come up with a resolution. In the meantime, the business must go on.
Given that it is a fact that Microsoft systems are targeted more often for viruses/worms, and given that it is a fact that some system patches will break software, I really do not understand how anyone could defend windows as servers in a serious business.
If I can't apply a patch on a unix system because it could break software, 9/10 times, it is some obscure bug that really isn't that big of a deal remaining unpatched for a month or so. If I can't apply a patch on a windows system, more often than not, it is a HUGE risk.
Mission critical, for me, means not having to patch often, and being able to skip patches from time to time.
Of course, if all you run is windows products, it generally OK as patches are largely tested across their product line. Try running anything custom or outside microsoft, and you run into trouble.
"How can you judge whether there is a consensus, if the community has had things withheld from its judgment ? Yep, we have 100% agreement from those who don't know ALL the facts."
There have been studies, of studies, that show that a vast majority of climate scientist experiments favor many things that this guy dismissed.
I'm not going to bother to google for a link, but it was something like 1000 out of 1200 peer reviewed papers supported humans as the leading cause of the rise in co2, and co2 as the leading cause of global climate change.
Just because you dissent does not mean your voice should be heard to 'balance things out'. Do a study, present actual data. This guy did neither.
This is yet another instance of the culture created by our 24 hour news cycles. Everything must be debatable with a pro/con spin. No matter what the facts are, we must find 2 dissenting opinions and get them on TV for a debate!
Debate is healthy, assuming there are areas that can be interpreted in multiple ways.
The biggest problem with news covering any issue today, is that the issue is always framed as debatable. It doesn't matter what the issue is, or what the data says; a news organization knows that making an issue appear to have divided support, yields way more viewers.
What sells more ads?:
1. Issue A: everyone agrees that X is true, end of story. 2. Issue A: 2 top 'leaders' in their field duke it out on tonight's program!
Degrees do not necessarily mean you are the best person to give an opinion on a subject.
For instance, I studied Anthropology in college, but have worked as a system/web analyst for the last 11 years. Would you say that I am not qualified to speak about certain computer issues because my degree is in Anthropology?
I do not know anything about this guy (work history, etc..), I'm just saying: be a bit careful relating knowledge to degrees.
That is absolutely correct, when you are talking about a single business interest competing in a single environment.
When multiple corporations join under an umbrella corporation, what can happen is less than 'free market ideal'. This is totally outside the point of the parent topic:), but I think it is worth reflecting on.
Lets say that 'mega corp X' is made up of corps A,B, and C.
If A and B are profitable but using resources that C could use, and C is more profitable, 'mega corp' might decide to stifle the gains of A and B, in order to promote C.
I'm too tired to provide a real world example, but I'm sure you could find one if you wish. The point being, a completely, absolutely free market, can stifle innovation.
"A business taking care of business is the only ethical thing they can do"
There are many shady areas where 'taking care of business' does not result in a net gain for society at large.
There are a couple things that I think would completely change the world in a good way: 1. 100% of campaigns get funding from public sources if they obtain a required signature count, and... 2. Corporations are held accountable (like they should be) as individuals in the ecosystem.
I won't elaborate more unless more responses happen, but I just wanted to balance the prior post which was obviously a very free market position.
Hey, put me in the liberal/hippy/environmentalist camp for sure. You're preaching to the choir when it comes to peak oil and climate etc..
However, take a look at how effective Europe's cap and trade has been in actually reducing pollution.
I have no issue making energy cost more. However, cap and trade does not lower pollution when combined with 'offsets'. That is my problem with this bill: it just won't work.
Slashdot Mirror
I hit reply to a parent post that stated that... or so I thought. I appear to have replied to the wrong parent.
From sourcewatch
I do not know if this is accurate (I have tracked down all the references), but I can see why some folks would consider him a bit dishonest:
"McIntyre is, according to the Wall Street Journal, a "semiretired Toronto minerals consultant" who has spent "two years and about $5,000 of his own money trying to double-check the influential graphic" known as the "hockey stick" that illustrates a reconstruction of average surface temperatures in the Northern hemisphere, created by University of Virginia climatologist Michael Mann.He does not have an advanced degree and has published two articles in the journal Energy and Environment, which has become a venue for skeptics and is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals.[1] McIntyre was also exposed for having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a "strategic advisor." [2]He is the former President of Dumont Nickel Inc., and was President of Northwest Exploration Company Limited, the predecessor company to CGX Energy Inc. As of 2003, he was the strategic advisor of CGX Energy Inc. He has also been a policy analyst at both the governments of Ontario and of Canada. [3]At the 2007 Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union, McIntyre gave a joint presentation on hurricanes and climate change with Roger Pielke Jr.[4]"
"Al Gore has interests in carbon trading companies, for example. "
Searching for that, the first two pages of articles were all from extremely right wing sites/bloggers. This seems like it has been spun a certain way by the right.....
"(tag your paper with a Global Warming angle and you're more likely to get it published, or to get funding for your research in the first place)."
You have any data on that? I sure couldn't find any, not even from conservative sites.
"The amount spent by Environmental groups on this issue dwarfs that spent by fossil fuel lobbyists." .... .......
Even a cursory search turns up tons of evidence refuting that... claim. That is just a completely false statement.
That's true.
However, in addition we can already build self-modifying learning machines. They are called neural nets and have been around and improving for over a decade.
We can also simulate the analog properties of the electrical signals in the brain within a digital computer. We can simulate dendrite growth and neuron changes.
I'm surprised that in this era where many of us use virtual machines, that some folks cannot conceive of software that simulates biology accurately.
"The brain is a self-modifying learning machine. Until you can build a self-modifying learning machine, you can have all the structure you want, it won't be functionally equivalent to a human brain."
That is called a neural net. We already have them.
If our models of the brain become better and better, we can simulate all that neuron rewiring/dendrite growth/learning within software. Or, extract the functional equivalent of that growth/change into a model, that while not mimicking the biology perfectly, is equivalent in its output.
There is a ton of accelerating research on modeling the human brain at a very fine level of detail. The 'actual number of neurons', wiring, etc.. is the easy part. The hard part, is the modeling of what is actually going on, and there is a great amount of progress in that area.
Basically, the models of each region of the brain have improved as each scanning technology has improved. MRI's, etc.. are able to scan at a smaller scale as tech improves, and researchers are able to watch actual neurons doing 'things' as controlled input is delivered to either animals or humans.
There are also many invasive techniques, like physically hooking up wires to primate brains, and watching how the impulses change when the primate is trained to do X, etc..
Whether or not you agree with this author's conclusions, his book has an excellent summary (as of 2005 :)) of the various modeling efforts and there level of success
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity_is_Near
No one has the complete brain modeled yet, but enough of the pieces are being worked on, that it wouldn't surprise me at all to see them come together into a unified model a decade from now.
"Can you elaborate why the GP is wrong"
"blind faith in certain propositions (God exists, he created the universe, he created humans in his image etc etc)"
I replied directly to the GP also, but I felt like responding to you, mainly because of your second quoted statement. The GP stated that religion is 100% incompatible with science. That is a rather broad sweeping statement that dismisses centuries of philosophical work. There are quite a few ways in which religion and science can co-exist.
Lets take 'God exists' for instance. OK, lets say he does, is all powerful, and can hide from us forever if he/she wants. As a scientist, am I somehow corrupted by believing that there is something that our sensors and tools cannot detect? Would this prevent me from objectively measuring something that my tools can see? What is the problem with believing some presence exists beyond my capacity to measure, yet being able to measure something in front of my scientifically?
There is no conflict of interest as long as someone can clearly make a distinction between what is measurable and what is not. The background radiation of the universe is measurable, while God's presence is not. Done. Compatible.
As long as religion focuses on the 'why' and science on the 'how', there is no problem. It is only when the extreme members of any given religion begin to venture into the realm of the 'how', does religion become problematic for science.
Science and religion are completely compatible as long as science seeks to answer the how, and religion focuses on the why.
That is my personal belief on the matter. However, there are many many other theories about how the two are compatible. Please read http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Science-Gifford-Lectures-1989-1991/dp/0060603836 if you are interested in exploring them.
And for the record, I am not religious.
Google analytics for our community college website. I do see IE trending down over time, but no large jump from last month to this month.
Jun 7th through July 7th 2009
1. Internet Explorer--459,138 --59.99%
2. Firefox--226,804--29.64%
3. Safari--60,745 --7.94%
4. Chrome--13,584--1.77%
May 7th through Jun 7th 2009
1. Internet Explorer--572,732--60.80%
2. Firefox--293,206--31.13%
3. Safari--57,168--6.07%
4. Chrome--12,858--1.36%
May 7th through Jun 7th 2008
1. Internet Explorer--577,544--70.07%
2. Firefox--199,085--24.15%
3. Safari--41,548--5.04%
4. Mozilla--3,766--0.46%
I've always found that the people "on top" in an mmorpg, are those that stay ahead of the knowledge curve.
You gain that knowledge by researching, socializing/networking, and coming up with effective strategies to use that knowledge.
The advancement system really doesn't matter when talking about what takes more skill. Either a level based or skill-point based system could be implemented requiring equal skill to play, assuming the learning curve and required knowledge set was equally large.
Yet another reason to not make this overly complex. Making pollution a commodity just has all sorts of wrong written all over it.
Just put a cap in place. A small one. And lower it over time.
We monitor, regulate, and limit water pollution. Carbon pollution should be no different.
It is not like we had massive water outages and a destroyed economy when the clean water act was passed. Things worked out, businesses adjust and compete with each other given the new regulation.
It is my understanding that the single largest problem with the European plan, were offsets.
"Meanwhile, politicians also opened the door wider to so-called carbon offsets, which allow companies to meet their emissions-Âreduction commitments by financing rainforest conservation, renewable-energy investments, and other low-carbon projects in developing countries."
Costs went up due to putting any price on carbon emission. It cost a company 0 dollars before to pollute, now it costs X. That is the downside to consumers, one we'll need to live with until more power can be produced cheaply by renewables.
However, by allowing offsets (A company does not need to change its ways, just plant some trees), there was no incentive to move towards non-carbon polluting energy sources.
The European plan is basically the worst of both worlds: carbon now costs 'something', so energy now costs more, combined with a nice loophole allowing a company to never have to change any of its carbon based energy sources, thereby guaranteeing that the cost of energy would never drop.
This is why I am in favor of pure regulation, similar to the clean water act:
1. Caps that very slowly clamp down on carbon emissions over time.
2. Regulated by monitors similar to water pollutants
3. Companies that don't get their ass in gear and start changing, get fined heavily.
Will this make the cost of energy go up? Yup. However "cap and trade + offsets" does also, only we have zero environmental gain, and zero renewable infrastructure gain.
They could pay more, by having a different tax bracket due to their weight or type of business.
That is a major advantage of a GPS system. A flat tax on gas means that a person who commutes super long distances using say, 100 gallons of fuel a month, is paying the same tax as a huge shipping truck using 100 gallons of fuel a month.
The truck should pay more obviously. Easy to do with a GPS system ranked by vehicle type.
What would be unfair, is if all cars went pure electric, and politicians jacked up fuel prices to make up for the lack of income, making trucks and farmers pay it all.
"Why not tax fuel?"
Because trucking, farming, etc.. do not have any commercially viable electric or hybrid options. They might in the future, but in the meantime, you're asking those industries to pick up the tax tab for you.
I don't mind having a tax on fuel: it does promote efficiency. I just don't think we can raise it in response to fuel use going down. We need to additionally tax based on miles, but leave the fuel tax the same.
The only problem with simply raising the gas tax, is that is shifts the burden of the gas tax onto businesses that do not have the advantage of hybrids/electric, etc.. that an individual person would have:
So trucking, farming, etc.. would be 'asked' to pick up the tab that individuals are no longer paying.
Small and local is the new big.
In Portland Oregon, most of our grocery stores sell locally grown beef that comes from many smaller independent 'free range' cattle ranches. Likewise with vegetables.
The college I work for contracts all their beef from 1-2 organic/free range farmers also. In progressive cities, the trend is very much to support local responsible agriculture and farming.
Across the nation, in terms of bulk fast food, etc.. the mass producers are the mainstay of course, but even fast food is changing.
In Portland, one of our most popular fast food franchises is very progressive, only buying local products, only using wind power, recycling all their waste, offers seasonal food based on what is being harvested, etc...
http://burgerville.com/ (flash site, their only downside:))
I've seen more than 1 automatic windows update break server software running on the system. I've also seen Solaris, various distro's of Linux, HP-UX, and countless other operating systems break software running on them when a patch is applied.
Because of that, any sane system admin will test patches before applying them. If you discover that a patch breaks mission critical software on your test systems, you cannot apply the patch. You must wait for either your vendor or Microsoft to come up with a resolution. In the meantime, the business must go on.
Given that it is a fact that Microsoft systems are targeted more often for viruses/worms, and given that it is a fact that some system patches will break software, I really do not understand how anyone could defend windows as servers in a serious business.
If I can't apply a patch on a unix system because it could break software, 9/10 times, it is some obscure bug that really isn't that big of a deal remaining unpatched for a month or so. If I can't apply a patch on a windows system, more often than not, it is a HUGE risk.
Mission critical, for me, means not having to patch often, and being able to skip patches from time to time.
Of course, if all you run is windows products, it generally OK as patches are largely tested across their product line. Try running anything custom or outside microsoft, and you run into trouble.
"How can you judge whether there is a consensus, if the community has had things withheld from its judgment ? Yep, we have 100% agreement from those who don't know ALL the facts."
There have been studies, of studies, that show that a vast majority of climate scientist experiments favor many things that this guy dismissed.
I'm not going to bother to google for a link, but it was something like 1000 out of 1200 peer reviewed papers supported humans as the leading cause of the rise in co2, and co2 as the leading cause of global climate change.
Just because you dissent does not mean your voice should be heard to 'balance things out'. Do a study, present actual data. This guy did neither.
This is yet another instance of the culture created by our 24 hour news cycles. Everything must be debatable with a pro/con spin. No matter what the facts are, we must find 2 dissenting opinions and get them on TV for a debate!
Did you read his paper?
They silenced someone who had no data, no degrees, no expertise, really no rational argument at all.
Now if he had presented a study, that was peer reviewed, and reproducible, you'd have a point. Silencing unsubstantiated dissent is certainly fine.
Debate is healthy, assuming there are areas that can be interpreted in multiple ways.
The biggest problem with news covering any issue today, is that the issue is always framed as debatable. It doesn't matter what the issue is, or what the data says; a news organization knows that making an issue appear to have divided support, yields way more viewers.
What sells more ads?:
1. Issue A: everyone agrees that X is true, end of story.
2. Issue A: 2 top 'leaders' in their field duke it out on tonight's program!
Degrees do not necessarily mean you are the best person to give an opinion on a subject.
For instance, I studied Anthropology in college, but have worked as a system/web analyst for the last 11 years. Would you say that I am not qualified to speak about certain computer issues because my degree is in Anthropology?
I do not know anything about this guy (work history, etc..), I'm just saying: be a bit careful relating knowledge to degrees.
That is absolutely correct, when you are talking about a single business interest competing in a single environment.
When multiple corporations join under an umbrella corporation, what can happen is less than 'free market ideal'. This is totally outside the point of the parent topic:), but I think it is worth reflecting on.
Lets say that 'mega corp X' is made up of corps A,B, and C.
If A and B are profitable but using resources that C could use, and C is more profitable, 'mega corp' might decide to stifle the gains of A and B, in order to promote C.
I'm too tired to provide a real world example, but I'm sure you could find one if you wish. The point being, a completely, absolutely free market, can stifle innovation.
"A business taking care of business is the only ethical thing they can do"
There are many shady areas where 'taking care of business' does not result in a net gain for society at large.
There are a couple things that I think would completely change the world in a good way:
1. 100% of campaigns get funding from public sources if they obtain a required signature count, and...
2. Corporations are held accountable (like they should be) as individuals in the ecosystem.
I won't elaborate more unless more responses happen, but I just wanted to balance the prior post which was obviously a very free market position.
Finally?
Companies have been firing US work forces and moving overseas for decades. Thats pretty ballsy if you ask me.
Amazon didn't do this to prove some great moral point. It is business pure and simple.
Hey, put me in the liberal/hippy/environmentalist camp for sure. You're preaching to the choir when it comes to peak oil and climate etc..
However, take a look at how effective Europe's cap and trade has been in actually reducing pollution.
I have no issue making energy cost more. However, cap and trade does not lower pollution when combined with 'offsets'. That is my problem with this bill: it just won't work.
Unfortunately, cap and trade in Europe has not significantly reduced any pollution output due to offsets and abuse of the system.
I do not know the details about the US version, so it may or may not have plugged some of the holes.
I would tend to favor a straight cap, which very slowly tightens down over time. The trading and offsets is what companies use to abuse the system.
The clean water act didn't destroy water using industries/factories. Neither will a simple carbon cap.