| In a development that should surprise no one, Reps. Mollohan and Rahall have officially announced their opposition to the Waxman/Markley climate change bill.
I'll give them both credit for playing the politics in as saavy a manner as possible--they've been working all along to extract as many concessions as possible that benefit the coal industry, to the point that Greenpeace now opposes the bill as too weak. Talk about a payday for King Coal, one report says:
among many, many other things, the 1,200-page bill would also devote $60 billion to making sure clean coal isn't a loser.
I haven't decided yet whether I'm for or against this bill (at this moment, I'm leaning slightly for). I'd like to see a much stronger bill--something that is guided more by science and less by politics. Still, I hold out slim hope this bill will get better before it is signed and equally slim hope it provides a framework for making difficult political decisions ahead. The reality of the "facts on the ground" will force our hand--physics cannot be bargained away, no matter how deeply we bury our heads in coal ash.
Finally, for those who are--quite understandably--upset with Rep. Rahall and Mollohan on this vote, what did you expect? In politics, your allies will not be with you on every vote. It is unreasonable to expect that any climate change bill Rahall (in particular) and Mollohan (almost as much) would support is a bill that is going to meaningfully address the magnitude of the environmental issues facing us.
When our Democratic delegation in Congress stops voting the progressive way on Democratic budget priorities, ending our presence in Iraq, and moving toward universal health care, that's when there's ample room to start talking about primaries from the left.
Meanwhile, there's no news here. King Coal still reigns. |
