Article Assessment: Global Warming vs. Economic Crisis

This article can be found at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081012/ap_on_bi_ge/meltdown_global_warming;_ylt=AsUKXu3sKpo6VCa4YhlOeIYPLBIF

The lede to this article is a summary lede, but is a bit toned down since this story isn't focused on the timeliness, but a gathering of current opinion that probably won't change over the next week.
WASHINGTON - The economic free fall gripping the nation may bring down one of the main environmental objectives: capping the greenhouse gases that are blamed for global warming.
The lede doesn't need exact dates or quotes, it draws people in who are interested in climate change.

The next paragraph is the nut graf, giving more background on climate change being a goal "next year" as we now try to face the economic crisis:
Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate, and both presidential candidates, continue to rank tackling global warming as a chief goal next year. But the focus on stabilizing the economy probably will make it more difficult to pass a law to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. At the very least, it will push back when the reductions would have to start.

Then a good quote that adds to both the lede and the nut graf to further state that climate change isn't as important right now:
"Clearly it is somewhere down the totem pole given the economic realities we are facing," said Tom Williams, a spokesman for Duke Energy Corp., an electricity producer that has supported federal mandates on greenhouse gases.

The article continues with the legislature of cap-and-trade where greenhouse gas emitting companies would have a cap of how much they could emit, and if they emitted less than they were allowed, they could trade with fellow greenhouse gas-emitting companies. The article says Obama thinks the economic crisis and climate change can be tackled at the same time by auctioning off the cap permits and using the money for alternative energy. Although, I'm not sure who would be auctioning them.
The problem I see with both of these approaches is the companies emitting greenhouse gasses won't actually have to reduce them, they'll be able to go over cap by trading with other companies or buyinig more permits at auctions. It's just adding more bureaucracy to the problem, which doesn't ever help. It's almost like a game of Monopoly or Pit, a commodity trading game, only in the end everybody loses.

The end of the article is a quote from a Sierra Club leader:
"I really wish that the science of global warming would look at the newspaper, and say we have an economic crisis so the Earth will stop warming," said Dave Hamilton, director of the Sierra Club's global warming and energy program. "But that is not going to happen."

I had to read over this quote two or three times to really get what Hamilton was trying to say. I'm not sure if he would like this quote at the end, after all of the bureaucratic garble that precedes it, because he almost comes off as a left-wing nutter butter. It probably seem that way moreso because he has a strong opinon about what's happening and it's fueled by his concern for the environment as opposed to his concern for the election.