The current iteration of the cap and trade idea for CO2 quacks like a tax. There are unpleasant memories of the aborted BTU tax during the Clinton first term, which some Democrats blamed for losing the Congress in the 1994 election. http://thebreakthrough.org/ blog/ PDF/ Getting%20Real%20on%20Climate%20Change.pdf

Rather than borrow in today’s climate to build CO2 capture and treatment facilities, the utilities probably would just pay the penalty for continuing their usual emissions, then go to their compliant local PUC and get a rate hike to cover the increased cost to them. The public would end up paying for the emissions. If Congress can be trusted, the tax revenue from the utilities would be paid to the utility customers to hold them harmless. Net result: pollution as usual, and some money is shuffled around to no purpose. More likely, the consumer relief fund would be embezzled for earmarks and other more important concerns.

There is a fundamental “free market” assumption behind cap and trade. But the utilities are monopolies, and local PUCs are lap dogs rather than watch dogs. Utilities can easily avoid penalties by passing the hurt onto their customers.

There would probably be public support for a small rate hike to pay for upgrading the grid (e.g. the gas tax for highways) and to pay for deployment of CO2 solutions. After all, Americans enjoy very cheap power. But a big cap and trade plan might be a bridge too far at this point, as the Senate vote showed recently.

[JR: Can't get to 550 ppm (let alone 450, let alone 350), without making dirty energy much more expensive. That is just reality. And, no, I don't think PUCs will let utilities do nothing and pass costs on to their customers.]

Another such Republican “messaging” victory is on how taxes are dealt with in the public sphere. The mantra about taxes has weakened _a bit_ for the very rich, mostly due to the economic situation.

You might say that Democrats should challenge the characterization of cap and trade as a tax, but the point is that politically-speaking, they don’t want to fight that fight. If some policy is being characterized as a tax increase on the middle class, many Democrats will walk away from it, even if they don’t think the characterization is correct. They have other battles to fight.

It is, however, an interesting and unexpected curse to see the climate debate finally reach a level of seriousness that the DC press corps deems it worthwhile to treat it as just another empty horse race.

Profiles in Courage in mid 1950’s discussed the courage of a few U.S. Senators and some of there votes and the hard time people gave them afterwards. That book made me realize just how hard it is to be the political spotlight. Imagine voting agains slavery in 1850 in the south. Or imagine voting against carbon fueled energy from an energy state.

Why England Slept was, of course, the build up to World War II.

Gives a good book title, ‘Why the World Sleeps.’

Fortunately, Obama doesn’t appear to believe he needs to pay any attention to media whores and buffoons.