CNN: Global Warming vs Unemployment

Global warming vs. unemployment
Congress is gearing up for another run at a cap-and-trade law and opponents say it will cost too many jobs. Are they right?

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Get ready for fireworks. As congressional Democrats begin drafting another bill regulating greenhouse gases, opponents are already saying it would cost millions of jobs amid the worst recession in decades.

To be sure, estimates on how many jobs may be lost and when those loses would come vary widely depending on who's counting.

The most middle-of-the-road analysis seems to come from the government's Energy Information Administration. EIA said last year's failed Lieberman-Warner greenhouse gas bill would result in about 100,000 fewer jobs per year.

But the EIA's estimate is taking fire from all sides. Opponents of the bill say it is far too low, while supporters say it is far too high.

I'm still unclear how allowing the rich to continue "polluting" will combat "global warming" in any way. I'm also unclear how preventing poor countries from being able to use the most cost-effective energy available will combat "global warming".

Is there a quantitative study showing how ANY cap and trade system will affect global temperatures?