Thursday, June 25, 2009
Editorial: The politics of pragmatism
The climate bill compromise Rep. Boucher helped forge is far from perfect, but it may be the best that could pass. Hopefully, it will do the job.
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
The Waxman-Markey climate change bill is scheduled for a Friday vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, and Virginia Rep. Rick Boucher deserves much of the credit -- or condemnation, depending on your perspective.
Boucher played a key role in negotiating compromises that might help the bill pass, bringing in erstwhile opponents, such as Pennsylvania's Rep. Mike Doyle.
That effort won Boucher praise from the White House and criticism from both those who think the bill, also known as as the American Clean Energy and Security Act, goes too far and those who think it won't do enough to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Count us among those who fear the bill might not do enough to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Even so, we believe Boucher deserves support for his work in helping to craft a bill that could realistically win passage.
Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, went so far as to call The Roanoke Times editorial board to praise Boucher's constructive involvement.
Krupp said Boucher's engagement in the legislative process was not the norm for coalfield representatives, who often dig in their heels and take a more obstructionist approach to any legislation that could hurt coal-dominated economies.
Unlike us, Krupp is very optimistic about the bill's chances of having a meaningful impact on global warming.
He believes the important thing is getting a cap-and-trade mechanism in place to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. The initial goals for cutting emissions are less important.
Once the mechanism is in place, Krupp is very confident that industry fears about costs and economic impact will prove every bit as illusory as they did when cap-and-trade for sulfur dioxide emissions was implemented in the 1990s.
Hard experience disproving the worst of the industry fear-mongering, he thinks, will enable more ambitious carbon-reduction goals to be implemented.
Still, fears that the legislation will be too-little, too-late are valid. Scientists believe we're close to a tipping point after which it will be too late to avert most of the catastrophic climate changes attributable to global warming. This legislation might not do enough soon enough to matter.
But, as we have editorialized previously, the bill is preferable to doing nothing -- which, without Boucher's efforts, could be exactly where Congress might find itself now.
We would have preferred stronger legislation with more ambitious carbon reductions and less capitulation to industry.
But, pragmatically, we recognize political reality. We also realize that it would have been easier for Boucher to have played obstructionist and not been subject to full-page ads accusing him of working to kill jobs in Virginia. For not taking that easy road, he deserves credit.
