| Let me start by stipulating that Jim Webb remains far, far superior to George Allen in almost every way. I mean, would there have been any chance that George Allen would have voted for health care reform legislation? Obviously not. Would George Allen have voted 80% of the time with the Democratic Party? Obviously not. Would George Allen have been supportive on a wide range of other issues, let alone taken the lead to get a modern-day GI Bill passed (or to attempt a reform of our dysfunctional criminal justice system, or to be an expert on defense and foreign policy matters)? No, no, no.
Also, one more point before I explain why Jim Webb is dead wrong in his Roanoke Times comments. The point is simply this: George Allen is utterly horrendous when it comes to energy and environmental issues. I mean, this guy has worked the past few years as a total shill for the worst of the worst, the dirtiest of the dirty, etc. In short, when it comes to energy and the environment, George Allen is heinously bad.
Now, having said all that, let's get back to the main point of this article: Jim Webb is absolutely, 100%, dead wrong on what he said to the Roanoke Times. A few points.
1. The Bush Administration needed to be reined in, for good reason, because it was completely out of control and off the right-wing deep end. The Obama Administration? I strongly disagree that they need to be "reined in." To the contrary, I'd argue that the Obama Administration needs to be pressed to be more progressive, less corporate, less of a continuation of Bush Administration policies, and more about changing things than they've been.
2. As for the balance of power between the Executive and Legislative branches, that's a perfectly legitimate issue in our country and in our democracy. However, when it comes to clean energy and climate, it's utterly ridiculous. The fact is, the U.S. Congress for many years (decades, actually) has abdicated its responsibility in setting a serious, national energy policy. Even in 2009, with a "Democratic Congress" (supposedly) and a Democrat in the White House, Congress couldn't manage to pass serious, comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation. Let me amend that; the House of Representatives did manage to pass the Waxman/Markey bill, even if it had been watered down and larded up (with fossil fuel industry favors) by Rick Boucher and Company. What followed was Total Senate FAIL. No action. Nada. Not on Waxman-Markey. Not on a mandatory, national, renewable portfolio standard. Not on a power-sector-only carbon cap. Not on "cap and dividend" or other alternatives to the market-based "cap and trade" concept (originally a Republican idea, now bizarrely demonized by the Republicans). The bottom line is simple -- if the Senate was so concerned about its power vis-a-vis the Executive Branch, it should have stepped up to the plate and passed legislation. I know, "what a concept," huh? Since the Senate utterly failed, once again, in doing so, to hear them whine now about their prerogatives and such is completely insufferable. Give. Me. A. @#@$#$@. Break.
3. Specifically with regard to the EPA, the reason that agency is dealing with greenhouse gas emissions is simple - they're pollution that harms the environment. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the EPA not only has authority to regulate these emissions, but that it basically has to ("Under the [Clean Air] Act's clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do"). Bottom line: Congress has failed to act, the Supreme Court has all but ordered the EPA to do its job (which was, by the way, established by Congress in the first place), and now it's long past time for that to happen.
4. With regard to Webb's straw man that "there are people who simply want to do away with coal," and of course they're all from outside Coal Country, that's simply false. Personally, I'm as strong an environmentalist as you get, but if someone could demonstrate to me how coal could truly be made "clean" - not just in burning it, but also in mining it - I'd actually be quite favorable towards it. Why? Because it's a fuel that we don't have to import and that we have huge quantities of. To date, unfortunately, nobody has made coal "clean," nor does that seem to be happening anytime soon (probably decades away, at best), and that's just reality. Given that situation, and given the reality of what greenhouse gas emissions are doing to our planet's environment - and no, you can't wave a magic wand or your hands in the air and wish that away - we've got to deal with that. Pointing at bogeyman who our "out to get coal" or whatever is not serious, substantive, or frankly constructive in any way. Instead, what we need is honest, courageous leadership that's not afraid to lay out the challenges, the goals, and to come up with an achievable path to solving the former and achieving the latter. In the Roanoke Times comments, I'm not seeing that at all from Jim Webb.
5. As for the comment that, somehow, regulating greenhouse gas emissions and setting a strong policy in this country in favor of a transition to clean energy will drive business away from America, that's also completely wrong. In fact, as we speak, America is losing out - big time - to countries like China, India, and Germany in the race for the booming, multi-trillion-dollar industry of the 21st century, ENERGY. Hiding our heads in the sand for a few more years won't just accomplish nothing, it will actively harm our country's businesses as they attempt to compete in this enormous economic sphere of activity. Hanging on to the industries of the 19th and early 20th century is certainly not the way for America to win the economic race of the 21st century, but that's exactly what Jim Webb is advocating here.
6. Finally, with regard to Webb's belief that delaying EPA action for 2 years (or however many) "would buy time for Congress to consider the proper way to regulate greenhouse gases," that's simply laughable. Again, Congress has failed on energy policy, let alone on climate policy, for decades now (e.g., the Kyoto Treaty wasn't even sent to the Senate for a ratification vote). Why on earth would we believe that in 2 years, anything would change in that regard, except for the worse? Let's be blunt: this is not an effort to "buy time," this is an effort to kill any meaningful regulation on greenhouse gas emissions. And that, in turn, is completely unacceptable, based on everything we know about what those gases are doing to our atmosphere. At this point, if you argue the contrary, you are being willfully ignorant, obstinate, and non-productive. That's what the wildly irresponsible Rockefeller legislation is all about:
It is not constructive to block the only working law on the books to curb global warming pollution and replace it with nothing. Blocking the Clean Air Act will do nothing to bring Congress closer to passing comprehensive climate and energy legislation. Rather than fighting global warming solutions, we need to focus on cutting carbon pollution in a way that will spur clean energy investment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
This lunacy needs to stop, immediately. And Jim Webb needs to be a part of the solution, not a part of the problem, starting immediately. If not, I for one - and, from my conversations with fellow environmentalists, I think I speak for them as well - am going to have an awfully hard time generating any enthusiasm whatsoever for his candidacy in 2012. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. |
In the 
