WHERE TO GO FROM HERE ON CAP-AND-TRADE?

MoveOn sent out an e-mail today asking its members whether the group should fight to make the weak cap-and-trade bill better. My assessment of the Senate's ability to improve legislation is so pessimistic that MoveOn is probably better off focusing on health care, but at the same time it's always a good idea for lefty groups to be vocally pushing improvements in legislation. I am skeptical of its focus on eliminating the concessions in the bill that obtained the votes needed to pass it in the House. There is no way the Senate, where there is neither a Henry Waxman-style legislator nor a strong progressive constituency, will end up passing a stronger bill than the lower chamber.

More realistically, progressives' immediate focus' ought to be making sure this bill gets through the Senate intact, with no further concessions -- see Brad Plumer on that -- so that it can be improved after it is on the books, not while it exists as a nebulous legislative compromise. As more evidence for the idea of continuous legislating, I thought climate guru Joe Romm's piece at Salon made a good observation:

It is worth noting that the original Clean Air Act -- first passed in 1963 -- also didn't do enough and was subsequently strengthened many times. Similarly, the 1987 Montréal protocol would not have stopped concentrations of ozone depleting substances from rising and would not have saved the ozone layer. But it began a process and established a framework that, like the CAA, could be strengthened over time as the science warranted. The painful reality of climate change is going to become increasingly obvious in the coming years, and strengthening is inevitable.

I'd only disagree with the idea that "strengthening is inevitable." Strengthening will require effort from a lot of different constituencies. But the idea that this single bill will make or break climate-sustainability efforts is the wrong way to approach policy-making. This is the kind of thorny problem (and complex solution) that will require much revision, and I think the climate bill of 2010 or 2011 will be much more progressive than the one in 2009 simply because it will build on what has been accomplished this year. (That assumes that the Dems keep their congressional majority, etc., but I'd say odds are still on for that.)

-- Tim Fernholz