He brings up a point that I hadn't really considered before about legislative inertia and the importance of getting it right the first time.
When it comes to "Global Warming" legislation, who seriously believes that we will be able to drink at the trough multiple times. That if a GW titled piece of legislation is passed by Congress and signed by George the W, that it will be possible to invest the effort and convince 'moderates' to pass another Global Warming act just a few years later?
As per Stoller
only the Sanders-Boxer bill does what is needed. The rest of them are worse than nothing. If you pass a big piece of legislation, we'll have to wait at least five years before understanding it hasn't worked, which is five years we don't have.
This is a one-shot opportunity.
We get it wrong, the consequences will last generations.
We must get it right.
He's right that we must get it right. However I had previously been thinking that a series of laws, each tougher then the last, might be the way to go just to show the economic doomsayers that you won't wreck the economy, or even dampen it, by cutting carbon emissions. But, as Seigel points out, the legislative process doesn't work that way.
I continue to maintain that George the W isn't signing anything. The first chance for global warming legislation to become law will be late January of 2009.