I’d like to follow-up on Tucker’s comments on George Will’s recent column. As Will’s piece illustrates, traffic has reached critical mass in urban areas in every region of the country. Commuters are fed up with congestion and long drive-times, and are demanding action. What’s interesting, however, is that there are dissenting viewpoints on the issue, as various groups, for various reasons, would rather their cities not take action on traffic problems. Some resistance comes from environmental groups, who fear that new roads and bridges will be harmful to the environment. Some comes from anti-sprawl activists, who fear that less congestion will just lead to more people moving into the area. And some comes from people who simply do not commute, and thus would rather not spend tax money on the issue.
These groups, of course, represent the minority viewpoint, which is why new transportation projects are moving forward in most urban areas. So, rather than continue to fight these projects, aren’t opponents better off making sure that the solutions are as good as possible? That new roads have a limited environmental impact, for instance, or that private money, rather than tax revenue, is used whenever possible?
Here’s my point: it strikes me that the transportation debate being held in cities across the country is not all that dissimilar from the debate to cap carbon emissions. Setting some sort of cap on carbon is an issue that has reached critical mass - our research shows that public opinion, across the ideological spectrum, is strongly in favor of a cap of some kind. And, for this reason, Congress is going to take action, despite the cries of protest from a vocal minority.
It’s time for opponents of a cap to accept this political reality, and have some kind of say in what form this cap will take. And, fortunately, the debate is not a zero-sum game - I happen to think that a market-based carbon cap, like we’ve been talking about on Terra Rossa, is a an opportunity to advance conservative goals. First, it will limit carbon emissions without creating a huge new government bureaucracy. Second, it will not involve a tax increase. And third, it will contribute to energy security and a vibrant economy in the U.S. A cap is coming - conservatives need to help decide how it will work.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 14th, 2007 at 10:33 am and is filed under Alternative Energy Technology, Climate Change . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
