Great video. I'm sure that you were aiming for a short length, but it would be interesting to hear more about where the facts come from, hear some of the arguments against C&T and to see more concrete examples (without having to read the bibliography.)

As long-time public sector environmental attorneys, my husband and I disagree that the cap-and-trade with offsets bill passed by the House and the similar bill proposed in the Senate would be effective in fighting climate change. We believe they would lock in climate degradation. Please consider our op-ed in the Washington Post ("Cap-and-Trade Mirage") at washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/30/AR2009103002988.html and also our 10-minute video "The Huge Mistake - Climate Change Solutions" at carbonfees.org/home/?page_id=35
Basically, the legislation that "The Facts" promotes has extremely weak targets, inconsistent with the science, and even these weak targets will not be met because of the lack of integrity of the mechanisms proposed, including unverifiable carbon offsets. The legislation would allow all required greenhouse gas reductions for almost 20 years to be met wtih offsets, while burning above the so-called "cap" continues. Please see our website at carbonfees.org for additional information. Thank you! Laurie Williams

Laurie, it would be great to have a cap and trade law with much more limited offsets. But still, I have to agree with Nat and disagree with you.

Your comment is premised on the idea that we will somehow be able to enact a stronger climate bill sometime soon. That idea, I respectfully submit, is not even close to being correct.

It will be challenging to get the House bill, or something similar, enacted into law this year. (A stronger bill is politically out of the question this year.) And the next Congress is going to be worse on this issue, not better. So it makes sense to adopt a "good start" bill (which this is) and then look for opportunities to improve it.

There is actually a much better bill proposed to the Senate: No carbon offsets, no 3rd party trading, 100% auction of permits (no free passes), 75% of the revenue is distributed equitably to all Americans, remaining 25% funds renewable energy research and implementation, bipartisan support from the sponsoring Senators, and it is straightforward and easy to read (39 pages compared to 1400+). Its called the CLEAR Act - Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal - proposed by democratic Senator Maria Cantwell and Republican Senator Susan Collins. You can read the whole thing (in under an hour) here: bit.ly/7tUSCx

Thanks to you and all the people who work really hard on this everyday, now if we could get the good folks up on the Hill to put aside all their personal issues and just do the right thing. PLEASE PASS THIS BILL. Thanks, on behalf of the next generation.

Thank you for the urgently needed work and information concerning the health of our planet, and its people! So how and why is the "clear act" proposal stronger than the C&T? Surely there are more compelling arguments other than the bill is only 39 pages - and what is the difference between auctioning of permits and 3rd party trading? And why only 25% going back into renewable energy research? I appreciate the 75%, but I also want rainforests.

Looks like a rebuttal to Annie Leonard (done in her style,no less-- see storyofstuff.com/capandtrade/). I couldn't find any credits. Did Free Range Studios also make this?

Great video. I agree that cap and trade is the most efficient and economical policy to solve the climate crisis. We need the Senate to act right now.

I love Annie Leonard, but she's wrong on this policy (vimeo.com/7908590). Nat Keohane has it right.

gmmb.com/ is the registrar for cleanenergyworks.us

Sorry, but fact no1 is something that is SUPPOSED to happen in the future (CO2 reduction by 2020 and 2050). Maybe it's just me, but aren't predictions just mere predictions, and not facts? And also, law does not equal fact.
Furthermore, the whole environmental issue is kind of a consequence of how our economy works, and using a principle based on this same economy... does not sound very reassuring.

interesting video! check out this one, you might like it: vimeo.com/28665590