The Dish

A reader writes:

Many climate change activists — myself included — do wish that James Hansen would shut up. The man has a deserved reputation as an environmental hero because of the attention and moral urgency he has brought to this issue. Unfortunately, the closer we get to implementing actual solutions, the more his naivete and lack of policy knowledge get in the way.

Although carbon tax advocates furiously resist this notion, carbon taxes and cap-and-trade are functionally equivalent programs. Either will work fine to put a price on carbon emissions. Let's dissect the passage you quote:

A gradually rising carbon fee…

A gradually declining carbon cap…

would be collected at the mine or port of entry for each fossil fuel (coal, oil and gas).

There's no distinction being made here. Either carbon pricing mechanism requires measurement of fossil fuel use, and the method can be exactly the same in both cases.

The fee would be uniform, a certain number of dollars per ton of carbon dioxide in the fuel.

Here there's a genuine difference: carbon taxes require the government to pick prices (which are subject to intense bargaining and political pressure). Cap-and-trade requires the government to pick emission levels (which are also subject to intense bargaining and political pressure, but also have some grounding in science).

The public would not directly pay any fee, but the price of goods would rise in proportion to how much carbon-emitting fuel is used

in their production.

Once again, there is no distinction being

made here.

The cost of carbon permits is a fee paid by producers in direct proportion to the amount of fossil fuel used, and that fee gets passed along in the same manner regardless of the structure of the carbon pricing scheme. This is true regardless of whether permits are given away or auctioned.

And on and on. It's trivially easy to design equivalent carbon tax and cap-and-trade schemes because the two are means of achieving the same end. To be sure, the policies have small differences that translate into minor theoretical advantage (cap and trade systems are easier to harmonize internationally, carbon taxes exhibit less price volatility, etc.), but the overriding question is which policy has any chance of passage in the U.S. Congress. And by that criterion, there's never been any contest.

The other objections you raise are similarly insubstantial. Cap and trade requires a mountain of regulation? This is just the complexity whine raised by any issue advocates pushing their own "clean and simple" version of a bill. Carbon offsets are deservedly controversial, but they can exist just the same under a carbon tax scheme. And regardless of whether financial "speculation" (an oddly populist left-wing notion for you to embrace) takes place under cap-and-trade, it has absolutely no bearing on the environmental integrity of the cap.

Hansen's proposal is indeed elegant; it's the type of program I would put in place if I were dictator. But I'm not dictator and neither is James Hansen, and by the time his elegant little proposal made it through Congress, we'd be lucky if it looked half so pretty as Waxman-Markey.

Jeff Weintraub does a bang-up job, as usual, of fairly presenting the excruciating calls involved.

Steve Coll previews various sorts of engagement:

[T]here will probably be efforts to renew the aborted Saudi-led negotiations with Taliban leaders around Mullah Omar, which were conceived as a strategic initiative to engage the Taliban in talks that might eventually draw them into a national political settlement in exchange for a time-bound American withdrawal plan. Hamid Karzai has expressed an interest in such negotiations, although his record of succeeding in such talks, dating back to the nineteen-nineties, is not very strong. If achievable, such a settlement could certainly be desirable, if it left behind an Afghan government and army strong enough to defend the country from Al Qaeda and like groups. Such a settlement would be more durable still if it were linked to or coincided with improved relations between India and Pakistan.

A reader writes:

I got my book yesterday.  And it did NOT disappoint. 

Your foreword is beautiful.  I loved the  chronological format.  The Views have always made me happy, too.  And now I can pick up the book anytime.  I got through the whole thing last night, but I want to revisit it to really study each photo. 

What a wonderful way to bring the people of the world together. 

The reviews, now that people are getting their copies, have been uniformly raves. Don't miss out. It's a great Christmas present for Dish addict friends and family. Preview the book online here. Buy it here. The crowd-sourced price of $16.25 will soon run out, after which it will cost $29.95, the regular price. Click here to purchase.

 Weigel highlights a new poll:

In a November 18 Quinnipiac University survey, American voters said 48 – 41 percent that fighting in Afghanistan was the right thing to do. Since then Democrats have moved from 58 – 31 percent against the war to a 47 – 46 percent split. Republican support inched up from 68 – 22 percent to 71 – 21 percent and independent backing is up from 51 – 39 percent to 58 – 34 percent

Juan Cole reacts to yesterday's protests in Iran:

[They] were remarkable in several ways, I conclude on reading Borzou Daragahi's account in LAT. One is the sheer number of cities where students came out for rallies: "Esfahan, Shiraz and Kerman, in the eastern city of Mashhad and in the western cities of Tabriz, Kermanshah, Hamedan and Ilam as well as in Rasht on the Caspian Sea."

Another is that Iranian Kurds joined in the protests in Sanandaj and other cities, throwing a scare into the regime, which is said to be sending armored vehicles to help restore order. Iranian Kurdish dissidents have been targeted by the regime for harsh treatment in recent months. The rise of a semi-independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq has increased worries in Tehran about Kurdish separatism.

A reader writes:

Thank goodness people are starting to leave the left.  Their abandonment of Obama is as unconscionable as the right's refusal to work with him.  This is not about Clintonian centrism.  This is about decency and working together to solve problems.  Neither end of the spectrum is able to deliver.  Obama is almost solitary in his desire and ability to tackle problems of epic proportion while realizing that we live in a very heterogeneous society.  More and more of the reasonable people have to speak up against the right and left.  This is not about following lockstep with an agenda or sitting on the fence.  It is about a willingness to solve critical problems with an acknowledgment that all people at the table cannot possibly agree on everything.

Another adds:

I agree with the blogger's sentiment. The loud-mouths on the Left are becoming nearly as hysterical and vicious as those on the right. 

Obama is studiously trying to avoid the recent practice of using the majority in the legislature to completely steamroll and/or ignore the other voices in our political discourse. In order to reach any kind of real 'bipartisanship' the party in power must be the one to be inclusive, to listen, and to not rub it in. The left needs to get over it, because Obama is practicing what he preached all through the campaign of 2008.

It seems that the left had deluded themselves into thinking that Obama was kidding with regard to some of his positions (like Afghanistan), was fibbing to try and win votes, but that he would revert to partisan form after he had won. If Obama catches heat from the left and right but maintains the middle, he is doing what I hoped he would do (and what he said he would do) when I voted for him.

Another adds:

I am so glad that I am not alone as a dejected progressive/democrat. At this point, politically, I am homeless. I marvel (unhappily) on a daily basis on how myopic and stubborn many of those on the left have become in regards to President Obama. I wonder if any of these people have ever truly had to make hard decisions in their lives. Have they not ever had to weigh all consequences? Have they never held a senior position at a company and had to examine and make a thoughtful decision that everyone at the company will not like, but will the company as a whole will be better for?

These are real choices people, not a schoolyard fantasy, in which our guy, king of the geeks, is finally captain of the kickball team, and now he can pick us fellow geeks and play us all in sweet revenge against the jocks. He is not playing. He is leading. Not even one year in, I am willing to continue to trust his instinct, his grace, his patience and his measured hand.

These are the reasons I voted for him. Hope for a leader, not hope for “everything to be completely different from the previous guy regardless of the consequences”, which is what I think many immature democrats are upset about.  What a bunch of selfish babies.

"The attack on Pearl Harbor launched America into the Second World War, and our Greatest Generation did not hesitate when asked to sacrifice for their country. American men enlisted in droves, American women went to work in the factories that became our “Arsenal of Democracy,” and many Americans gave what little money they had to buy the war bonds that funded it all" – Sarah Palin, today.

"Really? A tax on national defense? I hear liberal Congressional proposals and I, like most Americans, wonder if they’re serious. We’re going to put a price tag on security? With Congress and President Obama spending money on everything at breakneck speed, it’s interesting that they are only now getting nervous about spending – but only when it comes to providing the necessary funds to complete our mission in Afghanistan. They don’t need a new “war tax” to fund a strategy for victory in the war zone. They simply need to prioritize our money appropriately. I find it telling that the Pelosi-Reid Congress is only cost-conscious when it comes to our national defense. Scary. Nonsensical. Unacceptable." – Sarah Palin, two weeks ago.

The good news is that the national election date has finally been set – March 4. The bad news is that al Qaeda is still able to mount rare but major attacks as happened yesterday. But what struck me in the reports today is the remaining insufficiency of the Iraqi security forces to get this under control:

Despite an overwhelming presence at checkpoints across the city, [Iraq’s security forces] appear unable to stop carefully orchestrated terrorist operations… American helicopters, drones and airplanes circled the city in the immediate aftermath, while sporadic gunfire could be heard. In addition to the aircraft, American troops, including explosives-removal teams, joined Iraqi security forces responding to the attacks, a military spokesman, Maj. Joe Scrocco, said in a statement. In the attacks in August and October, Iraqi forces kept the Americans at arm’s length, allowing them to play a minimal, and belated, role in helping assist the wounded and collect forensic evidence.

So between August and September 2009, US forces have actually had to increase their support of Iraq's security forces, not decrease it on the way out.

Now, of course, emergency response to this kind of spectacular mass murder is different than day-to-day policing. And the pace of attacks remains much much lower than the worst period. But what you have here is a Sunni Qaeda terror group still able to attack largely Shiite targets – in the recent case, even a particularly wicked attack on a school.

Sectarian tension pushed the election back two months; and al Qaeda is determined to exploit it again to rip the country to pieces. And this is happening with 120,000 US troops still in the country, and before elections that could generate any number of sectarian tensions.

Those who believe Iraq is over as a story are not, in my judgment, paying attention.

(Photo: Iraqis inspect damages following a blast at a school in Baghdad's Shiite neighbourhood of Sadr City on December 7, 2009. Six children were among eight people killed at a Baghdad school in what the Iraqi security forces said was an ammunition blast, among a total of 16 people killed in and around the capital. By Ahmad Al-Rubaie/AFP/Getty Images.)

Fallows compares their climate-gate coverage.