One commenter pointed out that if the level of CO2 is too high, then shouldn't the most rational approach be how to reduce the level in the least expensive way? The current plan calls for reductions in the output by the industrialized world and increases by the developing world. So what this all means is that there won't be any reduction in CO2 already in the air! Even the rate at which it is added will increase, but a little slower than without the plan. It is known that there are ways to directly take CO2 out of the atmosphere, like seeding the tropical oceans with iron for instance. Other ideas ignore the CO2 and go directly to its supposed problem: Warming. Why not produce a multitude of mirrored glass or plastic balls that can float around in the oceans reflecting light out into space?
A follow-up comment by a reasonable non-AGW sceptic was that the iron idea is good, but there could be unforeseen consequences. Well, isn't that a feature rather than a bug? If the CO2 capping will have any effect, won't it also be subject to possible unforeseen consequences?
Hasn't this occurred to anyone else?
If the current global cooling (since 2000 or 2002) continues and CO2 does actually warm things, then won't hard restrictions carry the risk of precipitating an ice age?
Update: Even a fanatic like James Hansen thinks the House bill is worthless.