It is philosophically wrong minded to propose to manage climate aggressively. It's too dangerous and arrogant. Embodied for some years by those who oppose all "planetary engineering" on principle, a new expression of this view recently came from the US NASA Administrator during an NPR interview. Now it seems, anything except the most meager action plan can be extrapolated to the same "extreme."
Environmentalists want to send more US jobs to China. Roughly, the logic goes like this: make coal more expensive here via taxes, mandatory pollution controls, or cap and trade systems, coal will be cheaper in China, so US businesses will move there, making the climate worse and taking more US jobs.
Environmentalists want to follow the EU's "socialist" approach of mandating cut backs and manipulating the markets. Europe is pushing for the central planning approach or what the US likes to call "command and control" regulatory systems to drive emission reductions. As soon as a high profile US environmental organization or presidential candidate aligns with that approach, McCarthy-style mud slinging will ensue.
City based environmentalists want to take away your trucks and your guns. It's well understood that the US green demographic is centered around city dwelling, college educated, young people. As soon as a presidential candidate who supports a CAFE standards upgrade comes out in favor of gun control, an unbelievable ruckus will ensue.
Image credit:: anonymous at Drexel University