When Ted Northouse and Michael Schellenberger wrote "Death of Environmentalism," it got people throughout the progressive policy community thinking about what might be wrong with their strategy for pushing policy. They've turned that article into a book that just came out. In it they put forward what they believe to be a politically viable way to solve global warming. TPM Cafe is currently debating it. They essentially want $30 billion a year to invest in clean energy research and development. Interesting. Well, in the fiscal policy world, that's a tall order. Congress is having a tough time pushing through $7 billion a year for kid's health insurance. And $30 billion will require some serious offsets. It's not a free lunch. Who's going to pay for it? Sure, in 2009 there may be a Congress and President that's ready to spend some serious cash on domestic policy. But the costs of better regulation would not make the public's eyes bulge and open up Democrats to old charges of being "tax and spenders." If regulation could achieve the same goals, why not include at least some of them in the package, and try to sell them with similar arguments when applicable? Northouse and Schellenberger may have addressed these concerns in their book. If their primary interest is to pick the solutions to global warming that might be political winners, they would be remiss not to.