One of the principles of the GNEP would pave the way for mass production:
• Promote the development of advanced, more proliferation resistant nuclear
power reactors appropriate for the power grids of developing countries and regions.

That means small, cheap reactors for grids less than 1 GW, with fuel supply guaranteed and used fuel removed. We could buy a few for home, and satisfy the MRET on the way.

For some reason U.S. Congress has withheld the $150 million or so necessary for the development of demonstration units, perhaps because they do not like the idea of competitor nations getting access to a low carbon, reliable energy supply.

GNEP

Is the insinuation that any new tax, and in effect any tax, is a bad tax? The governments only real form of revenue is tax. If a scheme of this magnitude and gravity requires a new tax to fund it, so be it. This isn’t a situation the world has ever faced before. No one said this was going to be an easy and fun exercise in stemming carbon production.

Arguments based on inefficiency, poor planning, pointless over complexity or taking too long to come into effect policy types are fine; they are reasonable. But just arguing that a carbon reduction scheme, operated by the government, does not require funding seems non-sensical to me and scare-mongering.