Then, a few days or weeks later, you see a prominent journalist make the same argument.
This is most definitely not to say that such journalists are necessarily stealing ideas. The likelihood that my small blog would have such an impact is slim to none. And I'm also not making innovative breakthroughs in philosophy or science. This isn't rocket surgery.
But I do look upon such situations with a bit of wry humor, as well as a sense of validation and satisfaction. Even if it's not me who is getting the ideas out to the wider audience, at least someone is.
It was in this context that I read Kimberley Strassel's opinion column in the Wall St. Journal, Global Warming Overreach. In it, she discusses how the Democrats are pushing too hard for global warming-related legislation, and goes into great detail about the political implications. Though I'll be glad if they fail, this isn't my concern here.
Near the end of the piece, she discusses Cap'n Trade vs. the EPA "dangerousness" ruling of CO2, and I saw my argument right there in black and white. A couple of days ago, I said:
In October of last year, I wrote about the concept of "greenmail," where, if elected, Obama would wait to see if Congress would pass Cap'n TradeTM, and if they didn't within 18 months, he'd have EPA declare CO2 a pollutant. Well, it appears that the Obama administration has decided to use the greenmail first, as a means of scaring the Congress into passing Cap'n Trade. [bold added]Today, after discussing all the political battles around the issue and the difficulty ahead for the president's agenda, Strassel said to sum up:
The Obama team is aware it has trouble, which explains last week's well-timed Environmental Protection Agency "finding" that carbon is a danger. The administration is now using this as a stick to beat Congress to act, arguing that if it doesn't the EPA will. (Reality: Any EPA actions will be tied up in court for years.) It also helps explain EPA's Monday analysis claiming the legislation won't cost all that much. (Reality: The agency could only make this claim by assuming an endless recession.) [bold added]It's good to be right, as it confirms the reasoning in which I was already confident. But at the same time... I wish I wasn't right about this. Hopefully Strassel's wider readership will get more people to see this for what it is, and work against it1.
1. See this site for instructions on submitting comments on EPA's ruling that CO2 is a "dangerous pollutant." Scroll down to "Written Comments" and the instructions are in a linked EPA PDF. Make sure to reference Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171. [HT: Paul Hsieh]