How to cap-and-trade (away) climate-change legislation

I must give the climate change lobby credit: they almost got away with it.

They had public opinion on their side, overwhelming majorities in our legislative bodies, a White House eager to deliver a striking blow on climate skeptics and their big business and industry cronies, and huge amounts of money and influence to make it all happen.

So why did their efforts falter? What derailed the previously untouchable scam of the century? Undoubtedly the “Climategate” scandal, hesitation from moderate Senate Democrats representing heavy industry states, and a legislative hangover from failed health care reform all play a role. Many will also point to a certain truck-driving politician from Massachusetts who so rudely crashed the party.

But the true story lies within: the battle for comprehensive legislation and the greater environmental climate change agenda was lost not because of GOP opposition, but because they lost control of the message. While Beltway analysts will correctly nitpick the political elements of the Waxman-Markey House bill and the Kerry-Boxer Senate bill for reasons why support is lacking, I believe the greater strategic error made by climate change drivers was to expose American voters to the idea of cap-and-trade, thus shattering the tenuous mythology of global warming and bringing a much needed dose of reality crashing down upon their heads.

Milton and Rose Friedman, in their 1978 book “Free to Choose,” nailed the true connection between special interest and major legislative viability: “When a special interest seeks benefits through highly visible legislation, it not only must clothe its appeal in the rhetoric of the general interest, it must persuade a significant segment of disinterested persons that its appeal has merit.”

The environmental special-interest lobby would have been wise to heed the words of the Friedmans (though that thought is laughable). This is because by pushing the cap-and-trade message, they not only lifted the veil of panic-inducing rhetoric and fluffy polar bear imagery to expose the gritty downside of environmental government controls and regulation at a time of precarious economic conditions, but they also failed to persuade a significant segment of disinterested persons (non stakeholders) to truly buy into Al Gore’s magic weather-control fantasies.

Traditionally, the general electorate is apathetic towards proposed federal government policies that do not directly involve their specific individual interests, such as climate change. (The health care reform attempts are an example of one that does engage individual voter interests.) This is perfectly normal, because most people do not have the time to review and comprehend the massive amount of federal regulation and legislation that takes place each year (oddly, many members of Congress seem to suffer the same affliction). Apathy of the electorate can be a good indicator of a healthy sociopolitical system. If voters are relatively unconcerned with political actions, chances are good that the government and economy are probably running smoothly.