We’ve spent a lot of time and, well, energy warning against
costly carbon controls, yet we must admit the fruits of our
earnest labors pale in comparison to those of Senator Barbara
Boxer. That’s odd because Boxer is an avowed environmentalist and
chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Her honest
job description might be, “To pass the most annoying, burdensome
legislation possible.”
However, it’s hard to argue with the lady’s results. Her
resolute leadership has torpedoed two major climate bills — so
far. While we continue to disagree with Boxer vehemently, her
record of unmitigated failure is a “platform” around which we can
rally.
Democratic challenger and popular blogger Mickey Kaus tried
to make an issue of her ineffectiveness in the run-up to today’s
primary. He invited her to a debate on May 25, which she refused
to attend. Kaus had a cardboard box stand in for her on the
podium. With the aid of some audio clips, he debated the box. One
of the audio clips was of Boxer flipping out when a member of the
U.S. military referred to her as “ma’am.” The most effective dig
was yet to come after the debate, on Kaus’s campaign website:
“The box gave an honest answer when asked to list Sen. Boxer’s
major legislative accomplishments.”
Boxer’s bungling of global warming legislation has been
impressive. If we had decided to plant a mole in the Democratic
Party to scuttle the legislation, we’re honestly not sure we
could have done any better. In late 2007, for example,
soon-to-retire Senator John Warner, a powerful Republican
representing Virginia, lent bipartisan cover to a major
cap-and-trade energy rationing scheme he co-authored with Joseph
Lieberman. After passing through committee that December, the
Warner-Lieberman climate legislation had the big mo, and gave us
a big headache.
Then Boxer got hold of it. Over the next six months, she
changed it, adding hundreds of pages. By the time she unveiled
her version of the bill, the topic had become stale. The
legislation fizzled and the defeat was embarrassingly bipartisan.
Cap-and-trade is a Democratic Party platform plank, but ten
senators from Boxer’s own party sent her a letter explaining that
they could not vote for her bill.
June 29, 2009 left the high water mark for climate change
policy. On that day, the House of Representatives enacted a
cap-and-trade scheme, the Orwellian-titled American Climate and
Energy Security Act. It was the first time the Congress had put a
price on carbon, a.k.a. taxed energy. Environmentalists were
thrilled, and we were dismayed.
We needn’t have feared, because Boxer released the
companion bill in the Senate. She outraged Republicans on her
committee by refusing to deliberate the bill. In particular, she
barred any economic analysis. Republicans boycotted, thereby
denying Boxer a quorum for a vote. She found a procedural
loophole, and passed it out anyway. Her Democratic colleagues in
the Senate were put off by Boxer’s partisan pique. The
legislation was immediately shelved and now John Kerry is trying
to put together a new bill, without the aid of Boxer.
Boxer’s political kiss of death no doubt arises from her
peculiar notions of how climate policy works. In an October 2009
interview with C-Span, she praised a recent, precipitous drop in
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Now, she was right about that.
Emissions had fallen. But regulation had next to nothing to do
with it. The drop was caused by an economic recession.
Inadvertently, Boxer praised economic stagnation and undercut the
Obama administration’s entire rationale for green jobs. She
affirmed a causal connection between greenhouse gas emissions
reductions and decreased economic growth.
On energy and climate policy, we could not be further from
the positions staked out by Boxer. And that’s why we find it so
heartening that she looks set to sail through her party’s
Potemkin nomination process. As long as she is in charge of
climate policy, we can all breathe a little easier.
