We’ve heard a lot recently about global warming and the possible consequences, but still in its infancy – at least in the United States – is the question of solutions.

If you think it was difficult for scientists to arrive at a consensus, just wait until you hear from the economists.

Nonetheless, it’s important to know what the policy wonks are considering before we wander too far down the road. Here’s a sample:

“Feebates – Purchasers of energy efficient and environmentally friendly goods would get a rebate from a neutral administrator, most likely the government, which would raise the funds by tacking a fee onto products that are energy hogs and larger contributors to global warming. In theory, this market-based system would increase the demand for energy efficient products and put the dirty stuff out of business.

“Pavley or clean-car legislation – A bill introduced by a California lawmaker named Fran Pavley and passed into law mandates stricter emissions standards for cars sold in her state. The feds and automakers are challenging the law in the courts. Meanwhile, Washington and many other states have passed similar laws that are contingent on California being allowed to move forward. The hope is that when enough states adopt the requirement, automakers will relent and produce only the cleaner versions.

“Cap and trade or emissions trading – Another market-based scheme, where a limit is placed on the amount of greenhouse gases industries can emit. Companies that exceed the limits must purchase credits from those who remain under the cap. The key is where the limits are set and whether the punishment packs enough economic damage to curtail polluters. The European Union uses this system to control carbon-based emissions.

“Carbon tax – Individuals and businesses would be assessed a tax based on the amount of greenhouse gases they emit. Such a levy on people would target costs that have previously been “externalized.” That’s econspeak for getting a free ride while polluting. Other countries’ governments don’t absorb those costs, which helps explain why their gasoline prices are so much higher. Another way to look at it is that we’re currently fined when we litter. Under a carbon tax, we would be charged for littering the skies. The hope is that consumers would change their behaviors.

“Congestion pricing – Drivers would be charged a premium for traveling and parking in high-traffic areas. The idea is to get people to try transportation alternatives, such as buses, rail, bikes and carpooling. Officials are already considering a $4 toll on the Highway 520 floating bridge from Bellevue to Seattle and a parallel stretch on Interstate 90. In some cities, free parking and discount parking have been outlawed in congested areas. Another benefit is to cut down on the number of stalled or idling cars, which pollute more.

That’s just a sampling of the solutions, most of which are being quietly debated before being sprung on the public. Obviously, they’re controversial, so it’s better to get informed now than to be mowed down by the Jargon Express.