In a very familiar false dilemna fallacy, the corporate friendly sides in the climate debate are attempting to marginalize a very different approach.  An approach that pays we the people directly for installing solar panels on our homes and using geo heat exchange heating/cooling and plugging in plugin hybrid cars to our own home energy systems.

This NYT article written by Andy Revkin, sets out the attempted reframing. 

One side has the more progressive CEOs onboard, who want cap and trade.  They know that hedge fund scamming will give them big profits with vwery little action on their part.  And that caps on carbon can be raised at the will of congress, under pressure from lobbyists.

The other side consists mainly of free marketeerian think tankers who argue that we need to delay any action on GHG climate disaster, until new technological breakthroughs are made.  anything else, so they say, would hamstring our already failing economy.

This is going to be rough.  Either way, consumers will pay more and more for energy and more and more GHG will be produced.  That means we the people and mother earth both lose.

Reframing the debate around to illuminate how direct subsidy diversion can make a level economic playing field, upon which solar panels, wind farms, farm biogas, plugin hybrids, and geo heat exchange heated/cooled homes and buildings; will win using the undeserved corporate welfare  the government gives corporate "citizens" (some citizens have more rights than others): that's the way to beat this mass media con game.