Hudson Goes to Washington
Hudson resident Michael O'Hara was one of six members of the Columbia County chapter of the Citizens Climate Lobby who were in Washington last week to present a proposal for carbon fees and dividends to members of the House of Representatives. John Mason has the story in the today's Register-Star: "Residents bring carbon fee idea to Washington."
The Register Star story states that "the bill has some Republican support ..."
ReplyDeleteThat's a bit tendentious seeing as how the very first fee and dividend bill for carbon, known as the Raise Wages, Cut Carbon Act of 2009, was predominantly a conservative measure.
Known as HR 2380, Representatives Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Bob Inglis (R-SC), and Dan Lipinski (D-IL) were then looking for an alternative to the Democrat's favored "cap-and-trade."
Similarly, their proposal was for a carbon tax that would gradually increase over time, though the plan was to be supported by an offset in a reduction in payroll taxes.
I hope that by the time Congressman Gibson meets with the group again in August he'll think of a worthy counter-proposal that everyone can be happy with.
I attended the energy symposiums Mr. Gibson sponsored in Malta in 2012, and found him to be thoughtful, open-minded, and environmentally sensitive. Of the invited guests, I feared that might be the only participant concerned about the environment (specifically, the river), but I couldn't have been more wrong.
Unfortunately it's rare to learn such things in the Register Star.
Anyway, go Michael! and go Citizens Climate Lobby!
Not tendentious at all, as (former) Rep. Inglis was a featured speaker at our conference and we gave him the credit he was due for introducing HR2380. He supports our new take on the legislation and is working on his former colleagues to start a movement in this direction.
ReplyDeleteGlad to hear it Michael, but it was the Register Star's innuendo that was "a bit tendentious."
DeleteAs you point out, Citizens Climate Lobby is refreshingly nonpartisan and bipartisan. In hopes of keeping it that way - in an election year no less - it's necessary to highlight those occasions when the press favored its own partisan instincts.
This is not a terribly egregious example, but there have already been far worse at the Register Star this year where editing and proof-reading stories is evidently left to the reporters themselves.
Until the Register Star endorses candidates, the more its writers cross that thin line from reporting into lobbying the more the paper damages its credibility among reasonable people.
But hey, thanks again for your own effort. I confess I'm still learning about the idea.