The Journal is covering the ongoing cap and trade fireworks on Capitol Hill.
Global Warming Overreach - Congressman Henry Waxman played to the crowds this week with high-profile hearings designed to boost his climate legislation. To listen to the Energy and Commerce committee chair, a House global warming bill is all but in the recyclable bag. To listen to Congressman Jim Matheson is something else. During opening statements, the Utah Democrat detailed 14 big problems he had with the bill, and told me later that if he hadn't been limited to five minutes, "I might have had more." Mr. Matheson is one of about 10 moderate committee Democrats who are less than thrilled with the Waxman climate extravaganza, and who may yet stymie one of Barack Obama's signature issues. If so, the president can thank Democratic liberals, who are engaging in one of their first big cases of overreach.
Reckless 'Endangerment' - President Obama's global warming agenda has been losing support in Congress, but why let an irritant like democratic consent interfere with saving the world? So last Friday the Environmental Protection Agency decided to put a gun to the head of Congress and play cap-and-trade roulette with the U.S. economy.
Despite all the fur fighting, I predict Obama will get his cap/trade CO2 tax program and EPA will indeed start regulating CO2 as a pollutant.
Wall Street knows this, which is why the Journal's opinion page is pushing back so hard...
UPDATE: Sounds like Waxman knows this too -
In exchange for votes to pass a controversial global warming package, Democratic leaders are offering some lawmakers generous emission “allowances” to protect their districts from the economic pain of pollution restrictions.
Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, represents a district with several oil refineries, a huge source of greenhouse gas emissions. He also serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which must approve the global warming plan backed by President Barack Obama.
So, my progressive friends and family, a question. Are these sort of horse-trading "means" justified by the "ends?" Will it really make a dent in CO2 reduction if lawmakers exempt big coal utilities? And if they're doing this with the CO2 tax, will EPA be forced by Congress to end up with the same regulatory gaps and exemptions?
UPDATE: No dissent allowed. The hypothesis that is climate change stands un-opposed and unassailable. So much for the new Obama era of scientific integrity and transparency.
UPDATE: Gore - "Fight for climate is like fight for civil rights." Civil rights like, say, the right to free political speech?
Leave a comment