Did you know that last January men and women sat together in a room to decide our future? They had to decide, once and for all, whether the world would face rising sea levels, the death of small furry mammals (that we all love unconditionally, unless you work at Chevron or Exxon) and higher levels of armpit perspiration? Insert more histrionics as needed. But, seriously, there was. It was in Bonn. To quote Via Media, “much was said and nothing was done — and yet again even fewer reporters and officials paid attention to this increasingly irrelevant bureaucratic mess.” I think there’s another one scheduled. Look it up on Google or something.
Though that’s not the point of this article. The point is that the collective “mind” of the NYT has finally sounded a tactical withdrawal from the carbon tax initiative in their recent article. Perhaps they saw what everyone else saw at Bonn and finally realized that the gig was up for any world wide cap-and-trade legislation?
The successes make it possible at least to fathom a transition to clean energy that does not involve putting a price on carbon — either through a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade program that requires licenses for emissions.
Mr. Leonhard is certainly no seer. He argued, at one point, that Obama’s future economic policies would make the now-President “look like a fiscal conservative.” Punditry is, at best, a way for the upper-middle class to work without working. I respect him for getting his money, but certainly not his opinion. It is nothing personal. I don’t put too much stock in what a professional guesser, who knows little about natural gas exploitation and renewable energy. If you have read a particularly self-righteous pamphlet on how coal plant operators secretly want to destroy hybrid cars you know as much as him. More importantly, he’s quite the trial balloon for the New York Times. He’s too important to be the carcass others at the newspaper trample over if the blowback is too fierce. He’s too much of a trusted liberal ideologue for this to be the semi-weekly “look, we aren’t biased!” piece.
In short, we could be looking at a real realignment of the New York Times’ coverage of both natural gas recovery and cap-and-trade. Exciting stuff.