The Danger of Compromise

It's understandable that congressional Democrats would go ahead with an energy bill that raises auto fuel-efficiency standards to 35 miles per gallon, after conservatives filibustered bolder renewable energy provisions.

They had worked extremely hard just to win support for that tiny baby step, and they figured: passing what you can pass is better than passing nothing.

But yesterday's White House actions show the pitfalls of playing footsie with forces that do not negotiate in good faith to advance the public interest.

After signing the stripped-down energy bill, the Bush's EPA chief announced he was blocking plans from California and 16 other states to implement tough auto emissions standards that would cut greenhouse gas pollution.

The disingenuous excuse? We just signed the energy bill! It's a super-awesome climate-change fighter! Stupid states, shut up and sit down.

In other words, the small compromise gave conservatives an excuse for continued inaction.

There's a Beltway logic that small victories now automatically build momentum for big victories down the road.

They can, but that's not set in stone. It's up to us to make clear what's at stake, and what solutions actually get the job done.

And when you have conservatives in overdrive, working to misinform the public about what needs to get done, giving them political cover is particularly dangerous.

In short, we need to cut carbon emissions 80% by 2050.

The stripped-down energy bill only takes us a tiny step towards that goal, and was never sold by congressional leaders as doing more than that.

It is far from an argument for further inaction. Just the opposite.

Views expressed on this page are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Campaign for America's Future or Institute for America's Future