I think that if people -private interests- actually owned the air and water, they wouldn’t be used as a dumping ground.
CO2 is natural and I don’t think we should tax the economy into the stone age. But while it is natural for ice caps to melt and flood our cities, I don’t think we should want that. We need to look for a technological fix. (unfortunately as long as there is public ownership of natural resources, there will be many wasteful projects)
So I guess you do believe CO2 is causing GW and that cities will flood, meaning we should do SOMETHING about it even if it is not a man made problem?
Why should we do SOMETHING that isn't even certain and might have bad and unintended consequences at great cost to remedy a problem that isn't even certain in itself?
Don't get me wrong, I know there are times when man should do something to help reduce flooding or other natural problems, but these effects are local. If it goes wrong, it can be fixed. However, IF CO2 (manmade or not) is causing GW, and it took this long for the results to begin to be felt and it is "almost" too late (according to many), doesn't it mean that we should be very careful with implementing measures that would have results on a global (not local) scale? If it goes wrong somehow, by the same thought process, it would be nearly too late by the time we realized it and did something to correct it. And that correction could also go wrong. We could end up with large magnitude global temperature oscillation! (just kidding, maybe)
As you can see, I am not in favor of action of the kind given in this article based on cost, the need is NOT a certainty, and the result of said action is not even certain.