Han wrote:

Restricting CO2 output simply is a move back to the stone age.
Taxing it is a simply fueling Washington to do more harm.

Taxing it would be the Republican way - let the market place take
care of it. Replacing fossil fuels with something else is what I'd
prefer. Solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, plenty of options that CAN be
managed responsibly.

Solar, and wind, are merely nibbling at the margins. Assuming solar
collectors running at 70% efficiency, and adjusting for latitude, cloud
cover, and darkness, it would take a solar collector farm the size of the
Los Angeles basing (1200 sq mi) to provide enough electricty for just
California. Further, the cost to build and maintain a structure large than
all the pyramids on earth would be impossible.

The only way to improve on that is to move the orbit of the earth closer to
the sun.

There aren't any places left to build dams - in fact some are being torn
down so the Wart-faced Faux Salmon can defecate. Further, hydroelectric dams
are the most dangerous of all methods of power generation (dams don't fail
often, but when they do...).

That leave nuclear, but far too many people are too phobic about the
prospect for nuclear energy to be politically viable.