Middle Ground or Firm Ground?

A new bipartisan global warming "cap-and-trade" bill is being unveiled today by Sens. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. and Arlen Specter, R-Penn., and the sponsors are succeeding in getting the media to christen it with the coveted "middle ground" and "compromise" labels.

But "middle ground" always implies that the proposal would get the job done. Would it?

Not as currently written.

The major flaw is it would limit the cost for creating carbon pollution.

That's helping the sponsors get support from industrial polluters.

But unless there's a strong financial disincintive to pollute -- with a well-structured cap-and-trade system and/or a carbon tax -- we're not going to cut levels of greenhouse gas emissions enough to solve the climate crisis.

The bill does offer a novel approach to gain cooperation from major polluters China and India, and to avoid a loss of good-paying American jobs to places with low environmental standards.

According to Environment & Energy Daily (sub. req'd), union support was gained with a provision to "impose trade penalties against China and India if either country does not take similar steps."

Putting pressure on China and India to step up and follow our lead is worthwhile, because only a global solution can solve a global problem.

But only if we're really leading. Otherwise, it's meaningless. (China has already followed President Bush's lead ... in proposing toothless measures.)

The Sierra Club and National Wildlife Foundation find the Bingaman-Specter proposal way too weak, although the Natural Resources Defense Council looks at the bright side, noting that the bill shows the overall momentum in Congress is in a good direction.

That's all true. We should recognize that this bill isn't the final answer, but the momentum is on our side.

So, as this bill heads to committee, to be hashed out with other global warming proposals over the summer, the goal must be to keep the momentum going, take the good ideas from all bills, and build legislation on "firm ground" that will actually resolve the climate crisis.

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