I think Cap and Trade means the big businesses causing about 90 percent of greenhouse gas emissions would be given a certain amount of emissions permits for free and extra permits would be auctioned off, so it wouldn’t be a tax but it would raise money for the government. “Offsets” representing measured greenhouse gas reductions from keeping fields green, etc, would also be sold. A big business that finds a way to lower its emissions could sell its extra permits and offsets to another business. An international market similar to commodities trading, would be created. Thus, cap and trade would be a market-based way to encourage lower greenhouse gas emissions. A couple of corporations would be created to run this.(http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/da151a1c-733a-4dc1-9cd3-f9ca5caba1de.htm) That’s my understanding of what I read. It sounds rather harmless. Yet, I think it might be like saying I don’t have to keep my car tuned up if I give the money to the government instead. I think subsidizing inventers makes more sense. I think Thomas Edison was a professional inverter, and he invented the light bulb or something.