Hammering out environmental policy

DeLay: Climate change expands government

That oughta keep gubm'nt nahs 'n small!

If ever there was a window through which to view the modern liberal soul, it is the issue of climate change. Notice, did you, that it's not global warming we debate anymore, because, after all, it still gets cold in the winter. For years, liberals warned those less enlightened of us about the dangers of global warming, without much evidence, so they just changed tactics -- no longer are people to be terrified of the Earth's temperature rising, but its falling as well!

It's the ultimate liberal "heads-I-win-tails-you-lose" argument. Summer hot? Climate change! Winter cold? Climate change!
Use of the term "climate change" is a liberal tactic? Huh?
In recent years this has played out largely as a contest between "global warming" and "climate change." Bush's use of the latter was consistent with Republican practice, which calls for de-emphasizing the urgency of the situation, as recommended in a 2002 memo by strategist Frank Luntz. Unlike the "catastrophic" connotations of global warming, Luntz wrote, "climate change sounds a more controllable and less emotional challenge."
After defining Frank Luntz as a leebruhl, Delay goes on to tackle the leebruhl response to the ozone hole:
Tell me, has any Democratic politician ever -- ever -- proposed something innovative, original or even clever to solve the hot environmental issue of the moment? No matter whether it's the ozone, the ocean or anything in between, the response is always the same: more government, more regulation, higher taxes, more spending, less freedom.
After a 1976 report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences concluded that credible scientific evidence supported the ozone depletion hypothesis, a few countries, including the United States, Canada, Sweden, and Norway, moved to eliminate the use of CFCs in aerosol spray cans. At the time this was widely regarded as a first step towards a more comprehensive regulation policy, but progress in this direction slowed in subsequent years, due to a combination of political factors (continued resistance from the halocarbon industry and a general change in attitude towards environmental regulation during the first two years of the Reagan administration)...
DeLay goes on to regurgitate the fear tactic of it's either we do nothing at all or we get rid of absolutely everything to tackle global warming. There is no in between. Fear the dirty hippies that want to force you to walk around in loin cloths and gather berries in the wild!

He concludes with two "viable political options":
First, someone could propose a truly workable package of reforms -- a series of tax credits and market-based incentives for companies to reduce their emissions, for instance, rather than the zero-sum silliness of current cap-and-trade schemes.

Any serious proposal would have to begin with increasing domestic production, which could be done "green" by way of modern drilling technology or nuclear energy. But then again, no one's going to vote for a Republican because of his campaign's clever environmental white paper.

This brings us to option No. 2, the liberals' preference: insincere hectoring. Democrats know they'll be crucified at the polls if they ever do what they say they want to do to the economy in the name of protecting the environment, so instead they'll move the ball a few yards here, a few yards there, giving Hollywood environmentalists enough to keep the checks coming in, but not so much that Rosie and Babs would have to give up their private planes and limousines. Because at the end of the day, the environment is just the Left's collectivist economic agenda, wrapped up in a biodegradable green bow.
We can drill our way out of global warming! That should be an enormously effective strategy on the part of Republicans. Good luck!