Thank you for your kind, thoughtful, intelligent response. Let me try again without the recrimination. I'm an electrical engineer with my US green building council certification. I'm very interested in developing a green future. I support a carbon tax. I also believe that we need to tax industry to make them pay for their negative externalities. I'm not an economist but it's a term that I have heard here or there. Basically a negative externality is when you dump garbage in a river. It's free to you. But you make the community pay for your laziness. By external people are trying to say that The people who do the damage are not the same people who feel the damage. So I do believe that government needs to construct a framework where polluters pay for the damage they do. I have to say all of that because you're not going to like what I say next. But I need you to understand that I hope you don't dismiss me as a person who doesn't care about the environment. My concern is environmentalist often cause harm when they oppose improvement because the improvement isn't perfect. For me, the clearest example is opposition to liquid natural gas. Before I transition to my current job, I was in the LNG industry. Basically 10 of the largest boats produce more pollution than almost all of Europe's vehicles put together. These massive super tankers use bunker oil as their fuel. Bunker oil is the worst stuff on Earth. However, it's a cheap way of moving large boats. I was part of a project that was putting in LNG infrastructure so boats could be retrofitted to burn l&g instead of bunker fuel. Now LNG is not perfect. However everyone on the planet should agree that LNG is better than bunker fuel. However, environmentalist try to stop the project and they do stop LNG projects all over the planet because they are two idealistic and don't want gradual improvement. They want perfection. They go so far as to want perfection even when there is no green method of moving boats. They are working on batteries large enough or powerful enough to move super tankers but they just do not exist. Therefore, you have to choose between bunker fuel and LNG. Or you could be a hypocrite and just not want to send grain to Africa or South America. Because the only way of moving massive amounts of grain to Africa or South America is with very large boats. So my problem is when people don't think through the consequences of their idealistic goals. So back to Texas and their pipeline for getting oil out to the tankers. This is an improvement in efficiency. If we don't want to export oil and gas, we should just ban it, but we shouldn't require oil and gas companies to operate in a inefficiently. As an engineer, I hate inefficiency. Environmentalists tend to oppose oil and gas improvements in efficiency even when they would reduce the carbon output. Environmentalist often say anything in oil and gas company does is bad. However, I have a massive problem with that... If we don't want to export oil and gas, we should just regulate it so much that it will not be able to compete. We should just tax it so much and plant trees to offset the neck negative externalities until it goes out of business. However, we should not oppose construction projects that improve efficiency.