All Cost, No Benefit

Tech Central Station ^ | July 20, 2005 | by Marlo Lewis, Jr.

[.cnI redruM]

Tomorrow, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will hold a hearing on Sen. Jeff Bingaman's (D-N.M.) Climate and Economy Insurance Act. Originally an amendment to the Senate energy bill, Bingaman withdrew this legislation from consideration after its more aggressive cousin, the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act (S. 1151), went down to defeat by 60-38, losing by five more votes than did an earlier version in October 2003.

Proponents characterize the Bingaman plan as the moderate middle between the Bush Administration's "no action" approach to global warming and the Kyoto Protocol. The rhetorical slight of hand here is to equate "action" with "regulation." Yes, the Bush policy is non-regulatory. But those wielding the power of the purse should be the last to define "action" so narrowly. Under Bush, the U.S. Government spends more on climate-related science and technology than all other countries combined.

Unsurprisingly, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) also describe their legislation as a "modest first step" to address global climate change. And indeed, many climate activists and European Union officials describe Kyoto itself as a small first step in a series of measures to control greenhouse gas emissions, chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel combustion.

In reality, neither the Bingaman bill nor any version of the McCain-Lieberman legislation represents the moderate middle. Such proposals are:

Radical measures that would institute a sharp break with previous U.S. policy; All economic pain for no environmental gain; and Camel's-nose-under-the-tent strategies to break the political ice for Kyoto-inspired litigation and regulation.

[.cnI redruM]

Why John McCain should NEVER be US President.