Jun 24 2009, 11:39AM
The Collin Peterson Climate Change Compromise
So it looks like the Waxman-Markey climate change bill will pass in the House this week:
The sponsors hammered out an agreement last night with Collin Peterson,
the chair of the Agriculture Committee. The main sticking point was
over whether the EPA or the Department of Agriculture would
administer a carbon offset program intended for farmers. (The offset
program will pay farmers to do environmentally friendly things like
plant trees.) Peterson got his way: The (more sympathetic) Department of Agriculture will
do the work.
I don't have a whole lot to say about the compromise -- the bill now weighs in at a morbidly obese 1,201 pages, and much like every member of Congress I sure haven't read it -- except that I can
feel my enthusiasm for the whole project slipping away. In the ideal
world we'd want a carbon tax, with the revenue used to fund a payroll
tax cut. In the campaign world we were promised a cap and trade bill
with 100% of the emission permits auctioned off. In the real world we
were offered a cap and trade bill with some portion of the permits
auctioned off and some portion of the permits handed out to please
various important constituencies who would otherwise scuttle the
effort. And in the world of Collin Peterson we will also have a special
offset program for agricultural interests.
I know that
politics is the art of the possible and we must cling tightly to our
copies of Machiavelli and blah blah blah. Whether an imperfect bill is
better than no bill at all is a question we will all have fun answering
in hindsight. But I don't see any reason not to point out that bill is
imperfect, and I don't totally understand why so few people are doing
that. A friend mentioned that Barack Obama got exactly zero questions
about energy or the environment during yesterday's presser, despite
mentioning the bill in his opening comments. Maybe ignoring the bill is
better than swallowing it?
Collin Peterson may be the Chair of the House Agriculture Committee -- image from Wikimedia -- but he also plays in a rock band.





In other policy areas, political compromise resulting in half measures could be considered progress. But the situation with global warming is so dire -- with a fast approaching tipping points resulting in catastrophic runaway climate change bearing down on us -- that we've simply run out of time for partial measures to have any meaningful effect. I don't see this legislation as anything other than tragic.
The problems with 'cap and trade': http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/25-3