The Politics of Carbon

President Obama took a bold step to issue by executive order a call for state-by-state regulations to curb carbon emissions and reduce greenhouse gases by 30 percent.  And Democrats are really upset about it.

Democrats?  Yes, Democrats in states that produce and/or use coal for electric-power plants.  Although the President's plan would cut carbon emissions by 30 percent by 2030 and would only decrease coal use modestly, Democratic politicians running for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky, West Virginia, and other coal states where Obama is generally unpopular are fleeing the President like vampires from a cross before the Republicans can target them as standing with Obama on energy policy.

Some commentators are already saying that these Democratic Senate candidates - including Democratic Senate incumbents Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Begich of Alaska, whose states produce oil - have been irreparably damaged by the new policy, no matter how much they distance themselves for the President, simply because . . . they're Democrats.   The party's liberal wing is already heaping scorn on them for acting more like their Republican opponents, suggesting that's only going to allow the genuine Republicans to win Senate elections in these states.  I say, these Democrats ought to do what they have to do to win.  Because even though the liberals can't stomach the idea of pro-coal Democrats in the Senate, the difference regarding the question of who sets the Senate agenda in the next Congress - Harry Reid or, assuming he survives the challenge from Alison Lundergan Grimes (one of those pro-coal Democrats) this November, Mitch McConnell - most likely rests on the success of these same Senators and Senate candidates.

Besides, what could a Senator Grimes or a Senator Natalie Tennant (Tennant is running to replace Jay Rockefeller in West Virginia) do to prevent the implementation of these regulations before Obama leaves office in 2017?  Win or lose, probably nothing.