I guess Armando is desperate for attention. He doesn’t have an opinion on the president’s announcement today on Energy Security, but he’s pretty sure that the “progressive position” on off-shore drilling is to oppose it. I, and certainly Steven, am willing to grant that. I’d also agree that the “progressive position” is to oppose clean-coal technology as a farce and nuclear energy because of the problem with waste. Increasing production of coal, nuclear, and offshore oil is not part of the progressive vision for America. And it’s not part of Obama’s agenda, either.
The president wants to pass a bill that addresses climate change. The House Cap & Trade bill is dead-on-arrival in the Senate. The Kerry/Boxer bill (pdf) forms the template for passing something in the upper chamber. The question before us is not whether or not we should be for offshore drilling. It is whether we are willing to make a compromise on offshore drilling to get most of the positive elements of the House and Senate bills enacted into law.
I can say that I am open to the idea without endorsing such a tradeoff. Without seeing the deal on the table, I can’t say whether I agree with it. What I do know is that no climate change bill worth shit is going to pass thru this Congress without making some major concessions to the energy industries and the states and politicians who protect those industries. Obama’s announcment begins to give a clear picture of what those concessions will be. But his announcement isn’t triangulation. His agenda is passing the climate change elements of the bill, not the carbon producing elements. This isn’t school uniforms, and Armando knows it.
