I’m not sure I get this. Congressional Quarterly writes:
President-elect Obama wants to move legislation addressing global warming as soon as possible, but Sen. Jeff Bingaman says he may have to wait – maybe more than a year.
“I think the reality is it might take more than the first year to get it all done,” said the New Mexico Democrat, who chairs the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Speaking at a conference earlier today sponsored by Point Carbon, Bingaman said “some factors” exist now, such as current economic crisis and the sheer complexity of the climate change issue, that might prevent Congress from doing anything early on in the Obama administration.
I seem to recall this same crowd had a slightly a different approach during 2001-2006 to describe anyone who suggested “waiting” to deliberate over said complexities. Something about reckless and irresponsible and akin to leaving children in a locked, hot car.
As we enter Year III of the Great Congressional Climate Emancipation, what happened to we know the problem; we know the solution; we must act now? And, uh, rationing energy is supposed to make us all rich so, you know, what’re you waiting for? Better economic times? That mystery $300 million that someone(s) gave Al Gore for a re-branding campaign (to the safer “climate crisis”) to kick-in?
I suppose that’s what we mean by this being the political “transition period.”
I was told this weekend during a panel discussion that to object to an Obama administration’s plans for global-warming legislation would be “paralyzing” and “suffocating,” and people like me need to just get on board with a supranational organization setting our policy, because politics – the public – is in the way.
I noted in response that, oddly enough, for the past eight years we’ve been told that “dissent is patriotic.”
Fashion, like climate, changes.