I’m with Ramesh on this one. (Sorry, Iain.) I think that a deal, such as that outlined by Inglis and Laffer, is definitely worth taking (and have tepidly endorsed a deal of this sort in several NRO columns in the past few years, e.g. here and here). I explained some of my reasons on the Volokh Conspiracy here on Sunday. One reason that is worth highlighting is that a “just say no” position, such as that outlined by Jim Manzi in the December 1 NRODT — even if successful in defeating cap-and-trade legislation — would not prevent the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Now that the EPA has regulatory authority to control GHGs under the Clean Air Act, such regulation is a certainty. Indeed, it is compelled. So, if no climate change legislation passes, we will be stuck with even more onerous and unwieldy command-and-controls regs on carbon dioxide. This reality does not require preemptive compromise, but I think it does add to the argument for an ambitious deal, of the sort Inglis and Laffer have proposed.