That said, will it pass the Senate? It certainly won’t get strengthened there, dreams of some environmentalists aside. (That’s a fantasy I have, but not a dream, because I know it has zero chance.)
It has tough sledding. Not so much because of GOP opposition, but because healthcare reform is the hot Senate topic right now, and the issue of whether or not Obama will bypass the Senate reconciliation procedures on that issue.
That said, does Waxman-Markey matter?
Well, maybe not.
My take? Contra Gang Green enviro organzations (who, of course, value their Democratic Party “access” on a bill like this), I’m halfway in agreement, at least, with Greenpeace’s dump this sucker angle.
What’s wrong with the bill? Per Grist, a fair amount:
The biggest flaws environmental organizations have identified in Waxman-Markey include the removal of the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act, the grandfathering of old coal-fired power plants in the initial years of the cap-and-trade program, and the delay in considering the climate impacts of indirect land use in biofuel production, among others.
In other words, back to the BushCo era on CO2 regulation, back to the BushCo era, or staying there, on Big Coal, and kicking the can down the road on biofuels.
Add in the fact that the Obama Administration teamed up to shift the U.S. “target year” for greenhouse gas cuts from 1990 to 2005, and this bill is Swiss cheese.
Add in that USDA, not EPA, will regulate will regulate details of the compromise with Big Ag, and it’s factory farm Swiss cheese.
Finally, as noted in the bill passage story, the cap-and-trade credits will be treated as a kind of derivative, and we know what American financiers did with them the past several years.
Meanwhile, Gang Green group League of Conservation Voters has already promised NOT to endorse Waxman-Markey opponents, including real environmentalists who oppose the Swiss cheese.
But, now somebody else, someone whose opinion I respect, weighs in with a solid reason to support the bill and support the Senate passing it.
Former Clinton Administration Department of Energy technocrat Joseph Romm argues that, while the bill is flawed, it’s a good start and can be built upon in the future. He uses the analogy of the original Clean Air Act of way back in 1963, with further development after that.
Romm says Reason No. 2 for the Senate to approve Waxman-Markey is it will lay the groundwork for a bipartisan climate control accord with China, and do so before the Copenhagen environmental summit in December.
If Romm has insider information that says passing Waxman-Markey is pretty much a slam dunk as a guarantor of that, then, I’ll accept the good, or what sounds more good, as a precursor to the better. If not, I’ll stay in reluctant opposition.
Anyway, I’m curious about your views, so take the poll if you would. (Multiple answers are allowed, as I have a bit of snark in it.)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments are appreciated, as is at least a modicum of politeness.
Comments are moderated, so yours may not appear immediately.
Due to various forms of spamming, comments with professional websites, not your personal website or blog, may be rejected.