Are the fever dreams of the right worse than the fever dreams of the left? I’d say they obviously are, but that’s a matter for evidence and argument, not listicles. But nobody on the right is ever going to acknowledge this anyway. They really do think of carbon taxes as tantamount to Stalinism and they really do think of national healthcare as a socialist experiment in starting up death panels for old people. I’m not even sure how you have a conversation about this stuff.

Remember those two EPA lawyers that wrote a critical op-ed of cap-and-trade last weekend in the Washington Post?  They also made the same case in a video posted on YouTube (entitled, “The Huge Mistake”), which EPA is now demanding be removed, according David Roberts at Grist. Wrong move, Roberts points out, for one obvious reason:

When Bush administration NASA officials attempted to monitor and control what scientist James Hansen said to the press, they were rightly criticized. By the same token, even though I think many of Williams & Zabel’s policy arguments are deeply flawed, I can’t see any justification for refusing them the right to communicate honestly about their backgrounds to the public. EPA should back off.

The irony of the EPA’s attempted muzzling doesn’t stop there. In May of 2008, the same two lawyers wrote a similarly critical missive against cap-and-trade in an open letter to Congress.  Guess what, the Bush Administration had no problems with this demonstration of free speech. As Keith Johnson at the WSJ’s Environment Capitol noted at the time, if the muzzle was strapped on for the likes of Hansen,

it apparently can also be removed–like when a chance arises to criticize the climate-change bills in Congress that the administration dislikes.

Never mind the charges of hypocrisy that are sure to be leveled at the Obama Administration if its EPA insists on that video being pulled down. As one commenter at Grist observes

No, the real stupidity by the EPA is that by reacting so, they propel this into greater controversy and publicity.

Too late for that, unless Morano sleeps in on Sundays.

Lost in all this is a larger, perhaps even uglier debate that might soon rear its head, if anyone picks up on the argument Michael Tobis is making, in light of recent events:

Now that Copenhagen is not a big deal anymore, there’s no real rush to produce a bill in the US. Let’s drop Waxman-Markey and its variants, and take our time to try to come up with something that works.

Michael, what are you, a “delayer”?

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?

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

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 climate activists would be wise to pay special attention to today’s column, because Friedman lays out the best game plan I’ve seen yet on how they can get their team back in the game.

First, he argues that a straightforward carbon tax and not cap-and-trade should be the new Team Climate “strategy.” No brainer there, based on last week’s developments in Congress.

Secondly, he advises Greens to stop painting pictures of imminent catastrophe from global warming:

…because the worst effects are in the future, many Americans have more immediate concerns.

Rather, Friedman writes, the new branding of “our energy policy should be focused around ‘American renewal,’ not mitigating climate change.”

Lastly, time for a quarterback switch. Instead of an environmentalist like Chu, put the ball in the hands of General James Jones, President Obama’s national security adviser. A military man, Friedman believes, is the best person to explain why a carbon tax will

stimulate investments in the clean technologies that would enable the U.S. to dominate E.T. [energy technology], while also shifting consumers to buy these new, more efficient and cleaner power systems, homes and cars.

It is General Jones who

could make the case that the country with the most powerful clean-technology industry in the 21st century will have the most energy security, national security, economic security, healthy environment, innovative companies and global respect.

Alas, as geniuses like Belichick have discovered, sometimes the best team doesn’t win.

But his argument is more against the unpredictability of cap and trade. That, and putting the same masters of the universe back in the driver’s seat:

Haven’t we just has a big lesson in what happens when we put traders ahead of producers and consumers? Have we forgotten that lesson already?