1 - 3
The whole carbon tax is directly counter productive. It 'charges' clean companies a tax so that it's cheaper to move to a dirtier place. You have x dollars. You can produce y units in the clean factory in the clean location, or move to the dirty factory in the dirty location. Along comes the carbon tax on the clean place and now you have to go to the dirty factory. It's far better that clean plants produce all the products iff air is your top priority. If helping poor countries and shifting jobs from clean plants to dirty plants is your top priority, then the carbon tax does exactly that, punish clean lands and encourage carbon belching lands to build even more dirty factories to use up all their new-found demand to produce. The proper procedure and the only acceptable / only workable way is to give a certification to clean products produced by clean plants an 'A' grade (by a trusted third party, such as Consumer Reports who will own / copy-write the certification symbol printed on the label of each product). Whole stores could be devoted to selling only clean products, then we'll see if the world is serious or not. It worked with grapes for Ceasar Chavez, buy only clean products with a clean grade, it works, the only question is are you serious about cleaning the air. Dirty products made in dirty plants would get a lower grade. The market place consumer would then be motivated to buy clean products and boycott dirty products. That's if you care about the air we breath. If your real goal is wealth distribution, then you can do that by continuing to produce clean products in clean plants, and just mail the dirty places a check or ship them free goods, or, better yet, teach them how to our values and educational systems and political practices lead to wealth. Democracy with minority rights preserved, merit not blood lines, no bribes in the government.
I agree with the Supreme Court that there are rights not listed in the Constitution, privacy being one. But the right to privacy does not trump the right to life, even if we are not sure there is a "person." I can't murder babies in the "privacy" of my home. I certainly don't want to look in the 'private' parts of a woman. But it is the woman who is hiring a doctor to go in to that 'private' place and destroy what might be a person. Such actions violate the civil rights of the person and such possible persons should be protected by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
Of course, Israel has the ability to nuke all enemies in the region, they've had years to prepare. The only question is, which is worse, small strike at Iran, nuke Iran, or just get it all over with? Once nukes are used, all bets are off and there would be no stopping the reply, in time. So, do you get it over with, or do another Iraq? Problem is, the small Iraq style attack may no longer be practical. So long as Iran survives, they'd just get madder and crazier, especially if wounded. There's an example from Roman history, the Romans were humiliated... and allowed to recover. The reason for all the trial balloons from Israel in the press has been to try and judge the world and regional reaction to the various choices.
1 - 3