Climate Kidnappers

In case there was any doubt about it, the White House has officially said President Bush would veto the so-called Lieberman-Warner climate bill, which the Senate took up yesterday.

Here is a link to the White House "Statement of Administration Principles [1]." (In this case, it might be more aptly named "statement of lack of principles.")

If you parse this diatribe, you will note that it cites the worst-case projections about the potential cost impacts of prior versions of this legislation, without acknowledging that the bill has been tuned up to keep the costs under control—and that most studies have shown the costs would probably be relatively modest anyway. It also employs an old Republican trick: Just brand this a "tax and spend" bill. I thought we were beyond that type of demagoguery, but I guess not.

It is interesting to note that the White House is actually slamming not only Republican John Warner, but turncoat former Democrat Joe Lieberman, who, as the wonderful Kevin Spacey HBO movie "Recount" vividly reminds us, helped get Bush into office in the first place. So much for loyalty. And the White House is blasting Scott McClellan because...?

In all the moaning and groaning about potential costs, the White House never talks about the costs of doing nothing. But, as reporter Chris Holly astutely notes in today's The Energy Daily:

"Ironically [he could have said pathetically], the White House last week issued a congressionally mandated report—four years late and under a court order—that concludes global warming will exacerbate water shortages for agriculture and urban use across the United States; sharply increase heat-related deaths in metro areas; cause billions of dollars in damages from hurricanes, storms and wildfires; and increase the spread of disease from insect infestations and food- and waterborne microbes."

One real irony here is that the bill isn't going anywhere, in large part due to the demagoguery of some big corporate polluters, such as Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers, who recently branded the bill a "Mafia" creation. (Sons of Italy, where are you?) Rogers did this because the bill would steer some (though not enough) of the proceeds derived from carbon permits to socially beneficial purposes.

What Rogers wants is that ALL of the carbon permits should be given, free of charge, to polluters such as his company. In effect he is like a kidnapper demanding ransom. In this case, he's demanding that we pay his company to ransom our air!

Even though Bush will be gone soon, Rogers and his ilk will remain to taint future debates on global warming.