The Washington Post, in an editorial published Wednesday, said that the failure to gather support for the House-passed climate bill may be a good opening for better legislation. The Post said the House version was filled with complexity while alternative efforts appeared to approach parts of the same issue with simplicity.
Among the alternatives gaining favor with the Post was the CLEAR Act sponsored by Sens. Maria Cantwell D-Wash., and Susan Collins, R-Maine. The Post said the legislation would "cap the amount of carbon the United States produces and sell pollution permits to those who produce or import dirty fuels. Suppliers would pass these costs to customers, which would discourage carbon-guzzling. It would also raise costs, of course, but the government would rebate 75 percent of the revenue from the permit auctions back to the populace."
Wrote the Post: "Ms. Cantwell and Ms. Collins estimate that 80 percent of Americans would break even or come out ahead, even as consumption patterns shifted toward greener goods and greater energy efficiency. Congress would use the rest of the money to pay for some of the things in that energy bill, things that merely raising the price of carbon might not accomplish--investing in transmission infrastructure, for example, or basic research and development. There is a risk that lawmakers will waste some of this cash, but it's a defensible one."
The editorial found appealing the proposal for a carbon tax being considered by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska: "At the same time, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who is trying with Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) to assemble a bipartisan bill, has been discussing the Cantwell-Collins proposal with his colleagues, reportedly to some favorable reaction. In other words, there is a chance that the failure of the House's bill in the Senate and the search for a Plan B will yet produce better legislation."
