I have been quiet on the debate on Waxman-Markey. Not the quiet of contemplation, nor the quiet of fear ... but the quiet of wevs. Very early in the process, the Waxman-Markey version of cap and trade went off in the wrong direction, and since I could not see anything better getting up and going before the midterm elections ... and then only if progressives flex some serious primary muscle ... I just could not see the point of getting worked up one way or another.
And then Matthew Yglesias nailed down a reason I can see for supporting it:
no one country’s activities can prevent catastrophe, you need coordinated action by all the world’s major economies.
As Conor says "The big question is whether this bill will increase or decrease the chance of such coordination."
...
CBO estimate of GDP with and without Waxman-Markey:
NB. The CBO estimate of the cost is certainly high, and with a well designed New Energy Economy component, might indeed have the wrong sign. So the above is a worst-case scenario, and given the magnitude of the problem we are facing, well worth even that inflated estimate of the cost.
Mat Yglesias goes on:
I’ve heard some clever people who don’t want to be silly denialists about the threat of climate change, and who don’t want to be silly alarmists about the threat of Waxman-Markey, but who don’t have a self-conception as belonging to the same political coalition as Henry Waxman and Nancy Pelosi attempt to argue that the answer is "decrease." But I’ve never heard any of the people actually charged with the international negotiations say that. As best I can tell, everyone involved with the Copenhagen process, everyone involved with the U.N., and all the climate negotiators from the major European countries are hoping for something like this bill to pass in order to give the international diplomatic process additional momentum.
From the international perspective, the fact that the first serious legislative effort from the US is going to fall far short of what we need is beside the point. It can, indeed, be taken for granted that it takes several passes before a big country will get a system hammered together that will start to have serious bite.
Rather, what is important is the fact that the US is no longer on the sidelines, and has started on the road toward doing something. The US on the sidelines shelters everyone around the world who wants to make an excuse.
Now, consider what the situation is if Waxman-Markey passes. There is still substantial shelter for taking ineffective action ... but not shelter against taking action at all. So US legislation is used by the heel draggers as their benchmark in international negotiations.
And then as we fight in successive rounds to build a real framework out of the shambles of the current proposed system, we would at the same time be moving that benchmark.
By contrast, if the US, rather than taking relatively ineffective first steps, does nothing at all, the heel draggers have their excuse to refuse to do anything at all in return.
Pragmatically, with the focus of the blogosphere on party affiliation, and our acquiescence in electing a corporatist majority in the House, we never were going to get a genuine cap and auction bill out of this Congress. So while we look ahead to the 2010 mid-terms to try to correct that problem, passing Waxman-Markey now is better than doing nothing as far as the progress that is made on the international front.
Is that the only reason? Well, I dunno. Wevs. But its a substantial one.