"I guess you still don't know how this system works..."

"Cap-and-trade systems work like this: each entity in the world, whether it be a person, an organization or anything else that emits carbon dioxide, is provided a limit to the amount of carbon dioxide that can be released into the atmosphere. Each unit, usually in cubic tons, can be bought, sold or traded in a carbon market, if you will, which would be similar to a stock exchange. Companies and individuals that have excess carbon units could sell these carbon credits to others who are expected to exceed their carbon output. However, different people, and corporations, have different output caps in place, so each carbon unit could be different in size and hence traded on the carbon market and, as the year draws to a close, those carbon units could increase or decrease in value depending on carbon dioxide output for the year. While this may be reported in the media as a neutral tax, it’s far from being neutral. "

"Nas, as long as the farmers/factory owners in Nepal can make money outta this program and end up emitting less Co2 or No2 into the environment, ain't it all good, son?? "

Samsara bro, I wish it was as simple as you have pointed out. It only hurts the consumer in the end.

"Suppose your favorite car manufacturer is XYZ Company and, because business is booming for them this year, they’ve decided to increase production 25%. However, due to the increased production, they will require more carbon units due to the increased carbon dioxide output from their factories. XYZ Company has to buy carbon credits from another company who plans to come in under their quota for the year - and those carbon units will come with a hefty fee because the originator wants to profit from their carbon-cutting measures. Since XYZ Company isn’t going to absorb the costs of carbon units, the cost is passed along to their customers in the form of higher cost automobiles. What if the company selling the carbon credits is ABC Company - another automobile manufacturer? You just paid more for a car from XYZ Company and didn’t get an offset, so to you the carbon tax wasn’t neutral."

And for the rest of the dumbed down sheeps who love guzzling beer, watch football and believe in human caused global warming because they got their dose of reality from mainstream media and have "Inconvenient Truth" in their private collection, please take some time to do your own research or atleast watch the following clip from John Stossel.

By the way  did you even know your Global Warming Crusader, Al Gore, "last August alone burned through 22,619 kWh--guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore's average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006. Gore's extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore's mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year. "As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson. "

Earlier this year, Michigan Congressman John Dingell (D) proposed a 50-cents per gallon tax on gasoline to curb use. Australia recently proposed a carbon tax of $5,000 per birth and $800 per child annually due to the carbon dioxide exhaled from the additional humans. Some of us here probably love these ideas "to reduce their carbon foot print". My friends, its us who will suffer. The debate is NOT over !

"What's next - the world is flat and the moon is made of cheese?"

That's what most of the sheeples are believing when they believe in human caused Global Warming myths. Seems like you are also in the bandwagon.