Wampum

Last February I wrote that while there was no substantive difference between Lamont and Lieberman on health care, Lamont, the insurgent, could be for single payer, that it makes no sense not to run against a system that can't be fixed, but is wildly profitable, and wildly unpopular.

Today I've worse. There is a substantive difference between Lamont and Lieberman on global warming. Lamont is opposed to prescriptive standards, the core of Kyoto. The Climate Stewardship Act of 2003, aka "McCain-Lieberman", co-sponsored by John McCain, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, and Jim Jeffords, contained limits, prescriptive standards, on the amount of greenhouse gases U.S. power plants and industries could emit.

George Bush opposes the Kyoto Protocol and McCain-Lieberman, because they are prescriptive standards. Ned Lamont also opposes prescriptive standards, according to his website link.

Three years ago much of the blogosphere (y! sctp!) was less aware of the importance of Global Warming as a public policy problem than it is today, so as a reminder, here is a portion of the statement of David G Hawkins, Director, NRDC Climate Center, on the day The Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 was defeated, 46 to 53.

The vote marks a turning point in the global warming debate. For the first time, Americans know where their senators stand on this critical issue. The strong, bi-partisan support for the McCain-Lieberman bill shows the growing number of senators who reject a voluntary, do-nothing approach. This vote is a wake-up call for the White House and those big polluting industries that have been fighting to stop progress at all costs.

"The bill combines sensible standards with a proven, market-based system that fosters maximum technological innovation at minimum cost. It is a serious and balanced approach that has strong support from both business and the environmental community. The opposition to the bill is based on pessimism that is alien to the American spirit. We don't cover our eyes in the face of a challenge; the American way is that when we see a problem, we fix it.

A careful reading of Lamont's "Energy Independence and the Environment" issue page reveals much more interest in non-environmental process issues, e.g., confirmation votes for Alito and Roberts, rather than in fundamental environmental policy. The same issue page hits at Lieberman's vote on HR 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, in several paragraphs, but if Lieberman had switched his vote, the bill would have passed by 73 to 27, rather than 74 to 26, so that's an utterly non-serious waste of policy discussion space.

The latest polls show three-quarters of the electorate favor prescriptive standards. Insurgents should know these things.