It's no secret that climate change action has its detractors. The media, in a somewhat misguided attempt to provide balanced reporting, covers denier lies and inactivist talking points as if they are facts and productive action. From firsthand work in attempting to get a climate bill passed, I have increasingly felt that the debate has shifted from a continuum of positions into two distinct camps of "do something" and "do nothing." The do nothing crowd has it easy. Their primary job is to say "no" to everything that comes across the table, and they have become very good at doing just that and mobilizing their base to do that as well. They have lost their credibility through fraud campaigns, outright lies, and general deception.
But they're not what this diary is about.
This diary is about the people (namely the senators) still left in the middle who publicly say they want to "do something" but who have also criticized approaches such as cap and trade, gas taxes, feebates, and just about every other tool that has come across the table. I'm going to exacerbate the Us vs. Them mentality here and tell them to choose a side, but also say that I'd really like it to be the "do something" side - and they don't have to agree with us just yet.
In an excellent article at the Jewish Policy Center, David Jenkins, the Vice President for Government and Political Affairs at Republicans for Environmental Protection notes:
Opponents of Waxman-Markey (The 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act) are often shocked to learn that cap-and-trade has a conservative pedigree that can be traced back to the Ronald Reagan White House. While serving as counsel for Vice President George H.W. Bush, C. Boyden Gray became enamored with the idea of emissions trading as a market-friendly alternative to the "command and control" pollution reduction approach typically favored by bureaucrats.
He then reminds us that our nation's first cap and trade system was implemented by President George H. W. Bush as part of the Clean Air Act Amendments. Another landmark environmental law brought to you in part by non-obstructionist Republican government - a dying breed today. Take particular note that cap and trade is a market-friendly compromise. Many liberals, though certainly not all, would prefer a straight tax or feebate approach along with price floors and clean energy mandates (some of which is present in the legislation being debated currently - though it is very weak). Tom Friedman notes in Hot, Flat, and Crowded that he himself would personally prefer a carbon tax for reasons of economic certainty (among others).
Now that we've been reminded of how cap and trade is actually a compromise - and it is - how do we use this to bring these "do something, but not that" individuals back into the discussion? My impression is that the senators of this viewpoint are, in fact, being heavily engaged already by "do something" senators such as John Kerry. But I also feel that we must all be ready to bring average citizens in to support this viewpoint too, and the center is getting increasingly lonely.
Rather than continuing to dismiss people who dislike cap and trade as being the opposition, we must reach out and ask them - if not cap and trade, then what would you prefer instead? What do you see as the solution to the climate crisis? Remind them that this debate is not for people who only say "no." Inaction is not an option. But if they say no, but then counter with a preferred, and adequate, solution, then we ought to work with them. Having an opinion that cap and trade, as currently written, may have unintended consequences is a valid opinion and we need to explore it. These opinions should be prompts for discussion on the most effective, watertight ways to achieve reductions while minimizing harm to those consumers who can't afford it. This welcoming needs to also include those who merely want to slow action for a short time while we study all possible options. We must not treat these people like deniers because if we treat them as if they are in the "no" camp, then they will eventually be there.
However, often this delay is in search of the perfect legislation that will magically fix climate change and cost people nothing.I'll tell you right now that it doesn't exist, but that the most fiscally responsible way to deal with the problem is still to write legislation that costs something but that targets the burden to appropriate, equitable parts of society. Those who say they want to do something but that they don't want it to cost anything are probably posturing, but we need to invite them into the debate to make sure - they have already taken that first step and with the right information, they could take another. They don't need to agree with us to be invited in, but they need to have opinions that stimulate action rather than inaction.
I understand that numerous individuals and groups are already reaching out to this middle and doing an excellent job of it. I also understand that the need for action is extremely urgent. But as I found myself slowly drifting into the mindset of Us vs. Them, I felt the need to articulate that the best way to ensure that the middle ground stays rational is to invite them into the fold.