There is very scant evidence in this article to show that "the market is taking care of the problem on its own." This article actually cites the fact that carbon emissions continued to increase all the way from 1990 until 2007. One could easily conclude that the recession is the only thing that slowed down carbon emissions. If your goal is to actually reach a more permanent decrease in carbon emissions, then this article has put forth no evidence that this is possible through market forces alone. In fact, the claim at the beginning, that we're "half-way there," sounds a bit misleading considering we're still farther away from the "goal" set by Kyoto than we were in 1990.

If we're going to reduce carbon emissions (and I think we...

The rest of the article was pretty good, though.

If there really are "thousands of examples," I'd really like conservatives/libertarians to talk about more serious examples than light bulbs. I understand the principle, but seriously, if we're to make any political headway, we need to be talking about more pressing issues on people's minds than light bulbs. That kind of stuff just doesn't get it done rhetorically.

This article makes it pretty clear that more federal funding doesn't work. So what works? If conservatism is going to thrive in this country, we have to have ideas, not just complaints. Something has to be done about education. We can't just tell the federal government to stop trying. We have to tell them what to do differently.