Changes in climate change

A slice of reality may have finally set in, with the new administration and the uber-majority in Congress. For the better part of the year that Democrats have controlled both branches of government, we have heard weekly messages that they will quickly fix health care and solve the global warming crisis. To show their strength and conviction, both of these massive bills were given specific deadlines. Health care reform was supposed to be finished by the annual August recess and climate change was to be signed into law before the December United Nations summit in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Well, August is three months behind us and health care is sputtering along. That deadline has now shifted to Christmas for passage in the Senate and January for a conference committee where the real health care bill will most likely be written behind closed doors. Global warming legislation has a more uncertain fate. Recently President Obama admitted that his plan to have a carbon bill signed into law by the Copenhagen deadline won't happen. This realization was so devastating to the global community that participants in the summit have also pulled back their plans to pass a binding global carbon treaty. Instead, they hope to agree on "guidelines" that have some "immediate operational effect." That is political speak for "nothing substantive."

The real question floating around Capitol Hill regarding any global warming bill is not if something can pass this year, but can something pass next year. The year 2010 is a key electoral year for this administration that finds themselves on the hot seat for an underperforming stimulus bill, higher than expected unemployment rate and mobs of angry town hall participants lining the walls of their few public events. President Obama is on record saying that in order for a cap-and-trade bill to work, energy costs must dramatically increase. That's a tough message to sell to voters in tight congressional districts.

Earlier this year, Cambridge and UCLA researchers Michael Cragg and Matthew Kahn released a paper on the political geography of the climate change debate. To no one's surprise, they concluded that poor, conservative areas of the country have a higher emissions rate than rich, liberal areas. Is anyone surprised by the fact that the majority of climate change enthusiasts come from rich, liberal areas of the country where subways and bicycles are efficient means of transportation? Rich liberals are not the constituency Obama needs to court in next year's election. If Democrats are to keep their uber-majorities, they need votes from poor conservatives. These folks can't hop on a subway to grab a cup of coffee with their girlfriends and talk about the latest episode of "Project Runway." Unfortunately for these folks, the Democrats' carbon proposals increase costs much more dramatically on the same poor, rural voters they intend to woo.

So again, I ask, what are the chances of passing a global warming bill and winning the election in the same year? My guess is slim to none.