Collide-a-scape

Earlier this week, Curtis Brainard at CJR’s The Observatory wrote an excellent appraisal of the cacophonous debate over the Waxman-Markey climate bill. Brainard neatly summarized the two contradictory narratives and the main protagonists.

To help navigate what Andy Revkin recently called “the fog of climate policy,” Brainard suggests that newspaper editorial boards should be weighing in on the Waxman-Markey bill (only a handful have thus far):

These editorials are incredibly valuable to readers trying to make sense of the myriad voices ringing out on the news pages.

I’m not so sure that’s the best way. After all, most editoral pages have a particular ideological slant. I’d argue that more independent thought and less ideology would better help people reach an informed decision.

The indispensable one, boxed into a corner by Roger Pielke, Jr., and  The Breakthrough Institute, does something rare:

Yes, my thinking on rip-offsets has evolved, primarily because I have spent the last few months talking to leading experts, domestic and international, including the chief climate negotiator for a major European country.

As one reader to Climate Progress noted,

‘Evolved’ is an interesting way of putting it.

Sure, Waxman-Markey has left the station, and that’s going to be reason enough for cap and trade fence-sitters to hop on. But as Grist’s Kate Sheppard reminds us, the ride is going to get pretty rough, with plenty of agonizing stops along the way.

So with that in mind, if anybody wants to hop off, the WaPo’s Steven Pearlstein argues it’s not too late.  It’s fine to admire the political mastery that got the bill out of committe, he says, but after you wipe the stardust from your eyes, there’s still no denying that Waxman-Markey is

a badly flawed piece of public policy. It is so broad in its reach and complex in its details that it would be difficult to implement even in Sweden, let alone in a diverse and contentious country like the United States.

Pearlstein suggests that, as the reality of the bill’s flaws set in, we pivot from what’s politically possible to a policy much more practical:

The Waxman-Markey bill may be the best bill that the political system can produce, and surely it is far preferable to doing nothing. But now that we know what a climate-change bill looks like when it is jury-rigged to accommodate all the special interests, maybe Americans will be willing to reconsider one of the cleaner, simpler approaches — a carbon tax with all the revenue rebated to households, for example, or a cap-and-trade system that generates enough revenue to erase the national debt, or even a tough new regulatory regime requiring businesses to produce more fuel-efficient cars, buildings and appliances.

Of course, Pearlstein is a business journalist, so he doesn’t suggest how the clunky Waxman-Markey train can be turned around, much less how it can be exhanged for a sleeker model.

If all the main players and policy instruments in the congressional debate over climate change were represented in a demolition derby, here’s what it might look like:

In a brand new Lexus GS, a Democratic politician (Waxman-Markey) is behind the wheel, clumsily groping at an anorexic cap and trade bill in the front passenger seat.

In the same car, a Republican politician (Joe Barton) is seated directly behind the driver, unable to resist smacking the back of Waxman-Markey’s head. To Barton’s right is environmental advocate A (James Hansen), urging the driver to crash the car. To Hansen’s right is environmental advocate B (Joe Romm), urging the driver to keep his eye on the road and his foot firmly on the accelerator. Meanwhile, muffled noises can be heard from the trunk, where carbon tax is bound and gagged.

Trailing behind is a roaring gaggle containing the rest of the concerned pack. Earth guardian Al Gore mans his own Ford Escape. Ramming him from behind is fossil fuel lover Marc Morano, laughing hysterically in a 1970 Cutlass Supreme.

Just behind Morano is philospher scientist Gavin Schmidt and his gang, all crammed into a vintage VW bug.

In the pressbox, reporter Andy Revkin covers all the action. Unruly fans in the stands occasionally throw tomatoes and eggs at him.

The rest of the world watches the spectacle, open-mouthed, except in Beijing, where lots of giggling can be heard.

If you thought the debate over cap and trade legislation (as embodied in the Waxman-Markey bill) was already  overheated, ridiculous, and divisive, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

The real fun begins today, with amendment madness unleashed by the Republicans. That will amount to little more than a sideshow, but as the markup process plays out this week, even (cautiously) supportive green groups, such as the Sierra Club, are waiting to see which way the bill bounces. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, however, announced on Friday that they had seen enough (compromises) to sour on the existing House bill.

This split among green groups seems to mirror the tortured reader comments of recent weeks posted on Grist and Climate Progress, a good many which expressed doubts about the merits of cap and trade (versus a carbon tax)–and that was before the full details of the Waxman-Markey bill were known.

For those still undecided and open to varying interpretations of the bill’s efficacy, the following two assessments frame the polar ends of the spectrum:

Joe Romm’s take, after getting a look at the text:

The bill remains a stunning legislative achievement that (if enacted) would require the United States to eliminate virtually all greenhouse gas emissions in four decades — no mean feat, even for those of us who know that is eminently doable (and climatically crucial)!

Roger Pielke Jr. reads the same text but comes to a notably different conclusion:

It is bizarre, even farcical, that the U.S. Congress says that it is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but at the same time it is spending a huge effort and political capital creating a Byzantine system of rules that will allow, even encourage, exactly the opposite to happen.

There are those who also contend that any congressional action on global warming is better than none, an argument that Paul Krugman makes today in his column:

The legislation now on the table isn’t the bill we’d ideally want, but it’s the bill we can get — and it’s vastly better than no bill at all.

In recent weeks, particularly after James Hansen raised the rhetorical stakes, I’ve wondered if the see-saw debate Michael Tobis has had with himself reflects the confusion felt by the typical climate advocate. Tobis, though, has just made up his mind based on a seductive rationale that I think will end up being the default choice for people still wavering on whether to support the Waxman-Markey bill. To Tobis,

The dominant factor in the present circumstances is the upcoming Copenhagen negotiation. It makes a great deal of difference to all the other countries whether the US shows up having made real substantive cuts, by which the participants will mean, exactly, large symbolic actions that might eventually lead to real substantive cuts.

Here’s the problem I have with this logic: Joe Romm’s grade for the current bill is a B to B-. (And I think that’s inflated.) What happens if the House legislation gets further watered down in the coming weeks? Romm will be forced to acknowledge this and assuming he still supports it, will then have to adjust his grade. Let’s say he gives it a C or C-. If the bill ends up being that sucky, and there’s a good chance that could happen, what “symbolic” message does this send to the rest of the world? Seriously, if this so-called landmark legislation ends up being perceived as widely flawed and ineffectual, then how can it be legitimately viewed as a jump-starter for world action in Copenhagen?

Will there come a point for Romm and other Waxman-Markey supporters when the negatives of the bill override the positives? That’ll be something to watch for as this whole process plays out.

And in the unlikely event that Romm and perhaps Gore do jump ship? What then?

Here’s an excellent, alternative road-map offered by one Grist reader on Friday:

If the American public is not ready for an effective climate bill, we should not substitute an ineffective climate bill. We should ask the Administration to provide town hall meetings that improve public understanding of the threat and the potential solutions, staffed by the National Academy of Sciences, our National Security Advisor, and other experts.

Actually, why hasn’t that happened in the first place?

What I like most about the folks at Real Climate is that they’ll engage their adversaries. And these exchanges reveal an important dimension to the climate debate.

So with that I recommend this seething caldron, where Gavin Schmidt and Chip Knappenberger go mano a mano over the latter’s economic assessment of the Waxman-Markey bill.

Imagine that: an actual debate on the merits of cap and trade versus a carbon tax breaks out in the blogosphere, courtesy of James Hansen.

That doesn’t hurt so bad, does it Joe?

Nothing bugs me more than when so-called progressives have their own litmus test on political issues.

In the last two days, blogger Joe Romm has taken his fellow climate advocate, Jim Hansen, to the woodshed (see here and here), because of Hansen’s vocal opposition to cap and trade. One irony is that Hansen, in this commentary published yesterday, uses the same blunt rhetorical language that is characteristic of Romm’s blogging style.

No matter. Hansen, who argues that a carbon tax is far superior to cap and trade as a solution to global warming, is off the reservation. (Romm is an equally vocal proponent of cap and trade and dismisses carbon tax as politically untenable, and thus unworthy of serious consideration.)

Now one would think this a healthy debate to have in a democracy.  Not Romm. This headline from today’s post tells you everything you need to know about the terms of debate that Romm (and like-minded climate advocates) have set for all discussion on climate change politics and policies:

Memo to Hansen 2: Why is the country’s top anti-science blog reprinting your stuff?

It’s the ultimate litmus test: if anything you say can be used as fodder for Morano and his crowd, then you’re aiding and abetting the enemy, and thus you’re no better than them.

In an email to me some months ago, one staff writer for a prominent environmental webzine used this same logic to slap down a few critical posts I wrote (see here and here) about Romm and another climate blogger:

“Oh, ha! I see you already were linked in Morano’s latest email. Congratulations.”

That’s simply moronic. Imagine if every journalist worried if what he or she wrote would be used as a screaming headline by Drudge. (Actually, most journalists would gladly cut off a pinky toe in exchange for a prominent Drudge link.)

Or if that kind of logic was followed by U.S. politicians when crafting legislation? You wouldn’t see this or this.

As Roger Pielke Jr. notes here, Jim Hansen’s carbon tax versus cap and trade argument is strikingly similar to that of Rex Tiller’s, Exxon Mobil’s CEO. Does this mean Hansen is also giving comfort to the oil and gas industry?

Yesterday, after Romm posted part one of his missive against Hansen, this comment caught my eye:

Is climate change a serious enough problem that it trumps representative government?

I dunno. Is it serious enough that it dismisses all views that dissent from your own?

Several months ago, Roger Pielke, Jr., that big bad bogeyman to Romm and his ilk, said this to me and a bunch of other journalists at a roundtable seminar: “We live in interesting times.”

Yes, indeed.

So is this what it comes down to in environmental debates, who is more successful at manipulating the public?

As the N.Y. Times reports,

EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives.

Among the firm’s recommendations to members of congress and climate advocates:  instead of cap and trade, use the term “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”

As the Times’ reporter John Broder notes, this

directly parallels marketing studies conducted by oil companies, utilities and coal mining concerns that are trying to “green” their images with consumers and sway public policy.

Yes, there’s nothing new about framing. It’s long been an art form in political campaigns.

But do activists really believe a better catchphrase will move the ball on global warming? Make Americans take environmental issues more seriously?

Robert Brulle, an expert on environmental communications, tells Broder that the advertising tactic is cynical and ineffective:

The right uses it, the left uses it, but it doesn’t engage people in a face-to-face manner and that’s the only way to achieve real, lasting social change.

This morning, Michael Shellenberger assessed the cratering political landscape for cap-and-trade legislation, and his analysis strikes me as an accurate picture of where things stand now. Among the many he took to task was the President:

If there is a strategy coming from the White House, it’s not obvious what it is.

Well, a few hours later, at Georgetown University, President Obama, in wide-ranging remarks on the economy, made his pitch, insisting that the only way to spark a renewable energy revolution was  “through a gradual, market-based cap on carbon pollution.” His argument boiled down to this:

If businesses and entrepreneurs know today that we are closing this carbon pollution loophole, they’ll start investing in clean energy now. And pretty soon, we’ll see more companies constructing solar panels, and workers building wind turbines, and car companies manufacturing fuel-efficient cars. Investors will put some money into a new energy technology, and a small business will open to start selling it. That’s how we can grow this economy, enhance our security, and protect our planet at the same time.

Too little, too late? Probably. But in that very last line, he laid out the public relations strategy next time around.