It just isn't true that what's deterring Congress from pursuing serious legislation on global warming is fear of the significant economic costs associated with such measures. What's keeping them from addressing global warming are very large contributions from the energy and auto industries, in addition to an obstructionist executive. Those groups may fear significant economic costs to themselves, but they're not blocking a cap-and-trade program out of some mega-concern for the US economy. So to write a long article pretending that the political obstacles climate legislation faces are platonic concerns over wrenching change is simply deceptive. It is, in fact, absurd-seeming to read this sort of thing in a paper that professes to be sophisticated about American politics:
Despite growing public concern over global warming, the House has failed to agree on new standards for automobile fuel efficiency, and the Senate has done little to boost the efficiency of commercial office buildings and appliances. In September, Congress is expected to start wrestling with more ambitious legislation aimed at slowing climate change; but because of the complexity of the likely proposals, few expect any bill to become law.
Yes, the House has simply "failed to agree," and the next series of bills will perish because of their "complexity." Not because of energy industry contributions, or business interests, or the fact that the President is a former oilman who takes tons of money from his old friends, but because this stuff is simply really hard to understand. Thanks, Washington Post, for clearing that up.
