I am still deferring to Mr. Gore and to Mr. Krugman, not to mention to David Roberts who seems to be wavering. So I am relectuant to argue against this bill.
Lipow doesn't address the issue of appearing in Copenhagen with nothing much to show. This still seems to me to at least weigh in favor of some large bill. But he does address the issue of putting bad metrics into practice to start with.
In closing Lipow quotes Peter Dorman, so I'll quote the same paragraph as something to think about:
Mainstream environmental groups are ... soooooo happy that climate deniers are not in command of politics any more. They are fighting yesterday’s battle, to get general agreement on the principle that climate change is caused by people, and people need to do something about it. They like the nice feeling that comes from all of us raising our hands and pledging, scout’s honor, to achieve sustainability by 2050. But they are losing today’s battle to put into place a viable means to get from here to there, and judging from their public statements they don’t even know it.
Here is Dorman's take, on Econospeak.
Stacy Morford, on the SolveClimate site, is also on the fence.
In terms of public awareness, I lunched with a bunch of intelligent and astute American adults yesterday. None of them had heard of Waxman-Markey, though one person had heard of Rep. Waxman.
Maybe this sort of opacity is necessary as a matter of realpolitik these days, but I don't have to like it, do I? Shouldn't this have escaped the energy blogs and made a tiny impact on the mainstream?