{"id":485839,"date":"2010-03-29T18:45:21","date_gmt":"2010-03-29T22:45:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/climateprogress.org\/?p=22076"},"modified":"2010-03-29T18:45:21","modified_gmt":"2010-03-29T22:45:21","slug":"let%e2%80%99s-call-setting-a-price-on-carbon-%e2%80%9cpuppies%e2%80%9d-and-call-clean-energy-standards-%e2%80%9ckittens%e2%80%9d-just-so-pro-pollution-ideologues-have-to-attack-cute-animals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/485839","title":{"rendered":"Let\u2019s call setting a price on carbon \u201cpuppies\u201d and call clean energy standards \u201ckittens\u201d just so pro-pollution ideologues have to attack cute animals"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"The Hill<\/em>’s blog has a post<\/a>, “Why kill cap-and-trade? Because it\u2019s there.”<\/p>\n

The NYT<\/em>’s John Broder had a piece<\/a>, ” \u2018Cap and Trade\u2019 Loses Its Standing as Energy Policy of Choice.”<\/p>\n

CBS reports of the forthcoming Graham, Kerry and Lieberman bill<\/a>, “notably missing from it will likely be the cap-and-trade system that had not long ago been expected to be the centerpiece of any legislation.”<\/p>\n

Peter Barnes comments<\/a> on my blog, “If cap-and-trade is politically dead, why not try some version of cap-and-dividend?”<\/p>\n

Two points.\u00a0 First, the bipartisan bill will have a cap. And it appears almost certain it will have a trading system.\u00a0 But such is the world we live in that this isn’t cap-and-trade.<\/p>\n

I’ve said many times it is crazy from a communications perspective to build your core message around a process — “cap-and-trade” [or health care reform<\/a>] — rather than an outcome, like clean air or clean energy jobs.\u00a0 If it needs a name, let’s call it “puppy.”\u00a0 We can call cap-and-dividend “baby seal,” since it has a cap and a trading system, too.<\/p>\n

Second, conventional wisdom says we probably won’t get a climate bill this year, whatever it is called.\u00a0 But that’s not because of “cap-and-trade.”\u00a0 As Harvard economist\u00a0Robert Stavins explains in “Who Killed Cap-and-Trade?<\/a>“:<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

A Rapid Descent From Politically Correct to Politically Anathema<\/strong><\/p>\n

Among factors causing this change were:\u00a0 the economic recession; the financial crisis (linked, in part, with real and perceived abuses in financial markets<\/em>) which thereby caused great suspicion about markets in general and in particular about trading in intangible assets such as emission allowances; and the complex nature of the Waxman-Markey legislation<\/a> (which is mainly not <\/strong><\/em>about cap-and-trade, but various regulatory approaches<\/em><\/a>).<\/p>\n

But the most important factor<\/em> \u2014 by far \u2014 which led to the change from politically correct to politically anathema was the simple fact that cap-and-trade was the approach that was receiving the most serious consideration<\/em>, indeed the approach that had been passed by one of the houses of Congress<\/strong>.\u00a0 This brought not only great scrutiny of the approach, but \u2014 more important \u2014 it meant that all of the hostility<\/em> to action on climate change, mainly but not exclusively from Republicans and coal-state Democrats, was targeted at the policy du jour<\/em> \u2014 cap-and-trade.<\/p>\n

The same<\/em> fate would have befallen any front-running climate policy<\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Does anyone really believe that if a carbon tax had been the major policy being considered in the House and Senate that it would have received a more favorable rating from climate-action skeptics on the right?\u00a0 If there\u2019s any doubt about that, take note that Republicans in the Congress were unified and successful in demonizing cap-and-trade as \u201ccap-and-tax.\u201d<\/p>\n

Likewise, if a multi-faceted regulatory approach (that would have been vastly more costly for what would be achieved) had been the policy under consideration, would it have garnered greater political support?\u00a0 Of course not.\u00a0 If there is doubt about that, just observe the solid Republican Congressional hostility (and some announced Democratic opposition) to the CO2<\/sub> regulatory pathway<\/a> that EPA has announced under its endangerment finding in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts vs. EPA<\/em><\/a>….<\/p>\n

In general, any climate policy approach \u2014 if it was meaningful in its objectives<\/em> and had any chance of being enacted<\/em> \u2014 would have become the prime target of political skepticism and scorn.\u00a0 This has been the fate of cap-and-trade over the past nine months.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Precisely.<\/p>\n

The notion that cap-and-dividend … I mean, baby seal … is somehow intrinsically more palatable to the opposition than, say, puppies is nonsense.\u00a0 The point is they are both cute animals, and conservatives don’t like cute animals because they stand in the way of unrestricted pollution and our continued addiction to fossil fuels.\u00a0 Why do you think they want to off the polar bears?\u00a0 (see “Palin\u2019s axis of evil animals: Beluga whales join polar bears and wolf cubs<\/a>“).<\/p>\n

I mean, look at the Tea Partiers, the source of the sign above.\u00a0 Obama is being attack as an anarchist and\/or socialist for supporting a market-based approach to reducing pollution first advanced and signed into law by President George W. Bush’s father!<\/p>\n

What’s most pathetic — and, I think, missing from some of the analysis on the death of “cap-and-trade” — is that most everybody in the media and political establishment is quite convinced the issue is a political loser when the recent polls say otherwise:<\/p>\n