i dunno how a grown man can be so poor at understanding what a carbon tax is. read slowly. some politicians favor a "carbon" tax. carbon is an element. in carbon dioxide, carbon functions as a "greenouse gas". this means that it may restrict heat from escaping from earth and cause warming. some people are opposed to releasing c02 because they figure it will cause problems. ok, are you with me? now, in order to restrict this carbon from being emitted, there are various proposals. one is that there would be a cap on how much of the stuff that we can release into the atmosphere. folks would be given allocations of how much they are allowed to emit, then they can sell and trade their allocations. this would reward folks who do not emit much, and make it costly for those that did. presumably this would motivate folks to find alternative to the evil carbon. this is called "cap and trade". with me still? good. there is another plan for dealing with carbon emissions called "carbon tax". with some versions of this plan, the government would place a tax on emissions. the tax would be high enough so that the government revenue would replace the income from payroll taxes. again, this would reward industries that are not pollutin gthe atmosphere, while motivating the ones that did. there would be no loss in revenue for the government, and no higher tax burden for the people. instead of taxing folks for earning money like we do now, we would tax folks for emissions. i am a very good writer, and i can rephrase this so it is an even simpler read if necessary. do you favor either of those proposals, based on the general ideas? barack obama favors some sort of cap and trade proposal, would you agree that a plan like that is necessary, given what science is telling us about the environment? keep in mind that the science is ever so true.