EcoGeek spent a Saturday dissecting the article, scoring the 10 points made by the article. Some he grudgingly agrees with, but others simply do not fly. For instance...

Carbon trading doesn't work: FALSE

The only large-scale emissions trading scheme that we have to judge with (the American cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide and other emissions) has been a gigantic success. The cap has been met, lowered, met again, and then lowered again and met again. To say that a carbon cap-and-trade system won't work because Kyoto hasn't worked is, once again, foolish. Kyoto has no enforcement mechanism, and was, from the beginning, an extremely inadequate cap. All proposals on the table in the U.S. right now have two things Kyoto doesn't have. 1. Real, significant reduction targets and 2. TEETH.

Read the rest of Hank Green's post here. Keep an eye on Wired.com for the article to pop up in its online form.

If you can't wait, hit the newsstand and look for that cover in the picture. It's kind of hard to miss...

[via Treehugger]

Update: Wired.com has posted the feature online.