Not level, but effect.
The IPCC 3rd Assessment report "gives" a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 21 for CH4 and a GWP of 1 for CO2.Removing 1 Kg of CH4 will have the same affect as removing 21 Kg of CO2.Remove 3 Kg of CH4 or 63 Kg CO2, it will reduce MMGW by the same ammount.
If you tax per Kg, then CO2 will give a much better revenue.
Cynical, me, hmm.

Government Ministers rely heavily on "best scientific advice". The best scientific advice told them in the 1990s that millions would die from mad-cow disease and more recently that we were looking at a 66,000 UK death rate this winter from swine flu. Unless I'm being unduly optimistic, this hasn't happened. No doubt the same sort of people who offered this cautious advice are now frightening Ed Miliband about global warming and trousering a decent salary.Who exactly stands to benefit  ?
Wow it's late, I respect those who do not resort to simply attacking other people. I also think it's important to reiterate that oil companies are the common denominator plumped for when trying to dismiss a conflicting opinion and yet apparently those same people choose to ignore the very parties which stand to gain from cap and trade. Let us not misconstrue it, we can't ignore this because it forms the centre of their plans.
It is the very process by which they intend to regulate and essentially ration economic activity. Therefore it's a huge new market for speculators and those purporting to offer "green solutions". Now some of those green solutions will be good, others will be garbage but if the lobbying effectively seals billions in tax payers money being invested in these new companies, then there is another big benefactor.
Also concerning the more general point about scientists, as the poster below me has illustrated it seems that this alarmist tone is taken often.In respect of the latter, well it was obvious who stood to gain and of course to a certain extent it has worked, as it did whip up a frenzy as was evident from this board. Now assuming that the scientists were not in league, then it shows they can be wildly off the mark. If they are off the mark on this issue to, then the cost of their mistake will be a catastrophe for the western world. Some of you seem to be comfortable with this idea that the west will essentially be stripped bare, despite the fact that even the earth having warmed in the last decade is a very contentious issue, as the 2 articles from the same website have illustrated.
However it is the russian roulette playing investment banks who stand to gain the most from this. You can try addressing any point of a scientific nature but your words are undermined by climate gate, when a group of scientists are being asked to delete data because Audit Climate think they can prove x, then we know they are hiding damning information.
Interesting interview:
YouTube - Lord Monckton Vs. Greenpeace: On The Streets - Dropping InfoBombs - ClimateGate Global Warming Hoax
The protesters don't seem to know the facts. Some scientists are fudging the data. Science is not a matter of belief. It is not a religion.
To avoid cofusion leeds is refering to the poster above his.
Thanks Stuart, I could embed it, but it's 4 parts long and it's probably self defeating to then simply flood this thread with embedded videos. However if you go to youtube, search for Lord Monckton Michael Coren Show. The reason why you should do that is because Monckton speaks for almost 40 mins about this whole issue and interestingly states that he invited any scientist to debate with him on this very show, months in advance and no one took him up on his offer.
However I would recommend you do watch it and see for yourself what he has to say.
The problem with lengthy stuff is the attention span of many nowadays is very short. Even the above video is a bit long for some at 10 minutes. You have to be simple and succinct - but then the opposition argue it is just too simple and you have to look at the detail. Most can not be bothered and just state what others say who can be bothered, but have an agenda. In fact the Greenpeace lady was doing just that. She didn't have a clue about the actual facts.
When CFC's were found to be making a hole in the O-zone layer, they stopped putting them into fridges and spray cans.
They are going on about cars killing the earth, when in fact the air conditioning units keeping these cretains cool is running on HFC's.
1 litre of which is the same as a standard car doing 100,000 miles.
So if its such a problem, why not ban HFC's ???
I tell you why, MONEY!
?
I didn't realise that the numbers offered up in your examples were quite so definite.millions would die from mad cow, the death rate we were looking at
I thought they were worst case scenarios which is a lot different, but a legitimate scientific stance.Its not the scientists fault if the media want to scare the population by twisting what is reported.
They were predicting huge numbers of vCJD but they haven't materialised. There are on average 25-40 cases per year, the same as it's been since monitoring began.
The government twisted advice and now the protocols put into place cost the NHS millions every year - believe me when I say that ideas they come up with are ludicrous. Just ask any NHS dentist.
So when it doesn't materialise it's hardly surprising that there's skepticism with regards to AGW.