I wrote this several weeks ago, but only now have had access to the diary function here. I hope you enjoy it and I appreciate any comments you are willing to share.
Since Scott Brown's election to Ted Kennedy's senate seat, a huge shift in momentum has occurred in several important legislative areas. The GOP has seized upon the fact they have broken through the Democrats filibuster-proof majority, and have begun to backpedal and shift course on issues such as healthcare and environmental reform. This is hardly unexpected. Unfortunately, this loss of momentum is likely to stall any sort of action on environmental reform. While many will argue the healthcare bill is of ultimate priority, it's fair to say that environmental action deserves its place alongside reform of our medical system. Without an attempt to create some kind of movement on environmental reform, the United States is sending a very clear message to the greater world community - we don't care. Of course, the issue is more delicate than that. At the end of the day, however, our unwillingness to pass some kind of meaningful reform as soon as possible represents a clear point of view on the climate change issue. Lindsay Graham, the sole Republican vote in favor of cap-and-trade, was quoted in the Times as saying, "the climate change legislation passed by the House of Representatives and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is too onerous on business and does not enjoy bipartisan support." He does go on to say that they will continue to push for meaningful reform, but reform that will lead to greater energy security and is friendlier towards businesses.
I commend Senator Graham for asserting that the current proposed reform is pretty weak and that it needs improvement. I also find cap-and-trade to be a poor solution to energy and climate change issues for the long-term (a fantastic video explaining the flaws in cap-and-trade can be found here: http://www.storyofstuff.com/... ). Cap-and-trade has been implemented in other nations, namely in the EU. Moreover, the countries involved in this system have clearly stated that cap-and-trade is a flawed system. There is very clear evidence that there are too many loopholes and ways out of meaningful reduction in carbon emissions, or at least in enforcing strict caps to carbon-emitters.
All of these points lead to a strong argument against cap-and-trade, at least as a long-term solution to the energy crisis and climate change. At the end of the day, however, we have to understand this as a global issue. Whatever system is implemented by industrialized nations should be relatively standardized across the board. Any country with weak restrictions on carbon emission is going to become an attractive place for companies who aren't looking to make significant changes to their practices. Thus, I recommend Senator Lindsay Graham, as well as our entire legislative body, to take this issue to all industrialized nations. This way, we can develop legislation internally that is in stride with global expectations for carbon emission caps.
I don't expect the senate to jump at the idea. To be honest, I don't expect the senate to do much of anything. They've proven this to be true with great flair over the last few years. Nevertheless, we have to acknowledge this to be a global threat, and while part of our impetus in crafting solid environmental legislation is energy security and independence, to truly tackle the problem is going to require a coherent global effort. For those of you who have been paying attention, this was recently attempted in Copenhagen, Denmark in December. In most climate change scientist's opinions it was a massive failure, even if they tried to draw some positives from the summit. The United States played a major role in stalling any progress by showing up at the conference without any kind of proposed national legislation, and with Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) actively arguing against scientific evidence of climate change. Not only did this make the US appear silly in front of a world audience, it also furthered our commitment to doing nothing serious about the issue.
Again, I appreciate a politician stepping up and saying this issue needs more attention and the current proposal is flawed. Whether we like it or not, though, this is something that is bigger than just us. If we choose to carry forward as we have in the past, without a meaningful attempt to address this at a global level, any legislation that makes it out of congress is not enough.