We must not let the two sides of this internecine Democrat debate frame the entire issue

Bill Scher has a piece at Real Clear Politics this morning talking about a bipartisan bill -yes, apparently, there are some Republicans who have swallowed the hooey about an urgent climate-change crisis - that was recently crafted to address this non-issue, and how another group of Dems are bypassing it altogether, focusing instead on a "Green New Deal." You won't be surprised to learn that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is at the forefront of that impetus.

Scher's argument is that they need to find common ground, understand the political realities of the incoming Congress (both chambers) and forge a realistic plan that furthers their cause as much as possible.

But check out the parameters within which this is being argued:

Why are proponents of a “Green New Deal” giving the bipartisan carbon tax bill the silent treatment? It wasn’t that long ago that supporting a carbon tax was proof of one’s leftist bona fides; in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders routinely used his carbon tax proposal to distinguish himself from Hillary Clinton and contend he was the only candidate who tackled the climate crisis “aggressively.”

Something else happened in 2016: a Washington state ballot initiative for a “revenue-neutral” carbon tax. The proposal submitted for voter approval would have enacted the first carbon tax in the United States, while also cutting the sales tax and a manufacturing tax. Other revenue would be sent to low-income families in the form of a tax rebate.

But many progressive activists in the state didn’t want a revenue-neutral carbon tax. They wanted a revenue-raising carbon tax. They argued a revenue-neutral approach was flawed on both policy and political grounds. More revenue was needed to rapidly invest in renewable energy, green jobs and aid for impoverished communities. And those benefits would generate more political support, especially from the progressive base, than a quixotic attempt to impress conservatives with revenue neutrality.

Several major state progressive organizations, as well as the state Democratic Party, opposed the measure. No conservative support of note materialized either. It lost by 18 percentage points.

This year, progressive activists in Washington state got a chance to do it their way: a ballot initiative that raised revenue through a carbon emissions “fee” and spent it on their preferred priorities. Informally, it was known as the “Green New Deal.” It excited the left, but also unleashed backlash from the right — far more money was spent by Big Oil opposing the measure than was spent on the one two years prior. It lost by 13 points.

The philosophical divide between the hard left and center-left didn’t help the climate in Washington state. And it won’t help in Washington, D.C., either. Yet the same battle lines are currently being drawn.

What Ocasio-Cortez and 17 other allies are currently advocating for is not a specific Green New Deal bill, but a new committee with the task of drafting such a bill. This would not be a committee where widely differing proposals get debated; the proposed resolution dictates the outcome, mandating the committee produce legislation that achieves “100% of national power generation from renewable sources” in a period “no longer than 10 years” through “massive investment.”

I have no substantive problem with any of those provisions, if they could get the votes. But if such a high price-tag vision couldn’t garner a majority in decidedly blue Washington state in a decidedly blue election year, it’s prospects in the United States Congress, not just today but in the foreseeable future, look bleak. Most Democrats who flipped red districts this year ran as bipartisan problem-solvers, not big spenders. Even if Democrats expand their ranks in 2020, those moderates will still be in Congress. Progressives will have to compromise with them, and probably some Republicans, to get anything done.

I wonder if they've considered that a whole lot of post-Americans, legislators included, don't swallow any of this hooey. And that they adhere to principles that would preclude a government solution even if there were an urgent crisis. These people understand that government has no business "investing" in anything.

What kind of energy a consumer of energy decides to consume is his or her business, and likewise, what kind of energy anybody decides to produce is her or her business. There's no room for government in that. Most likely, the producer will choose to produce the energy form that proves most profitable, and the consumer will consume the form that he or she perceives as having the greatest value.

And that's all that needs to be discussed.

The task before the Green New Deal people is to trample this truth into the dust and forge ahead with their totalitarian plan to make us all turn every last cent of the money we make to build play-like energy-production equipment, like solar panels and windmills.

This is going to require real courage from people used to couching everything in politician-speak. They're going to have to say plainly that they stand for freedom and that the global climate is not in any kind of trouble.