I think there's a key point missing from this analysis.  There is plenty of good reason to push for effective GHG legislation, and plenty of reason to believe that good GHG legislation will not be economically painful.  At the same time, BLW was lousy GHG legislation.  

I don't suggest that all (or even the majority) of those who opposed BLW on the grounds that it would cripple the economy understood this nuance.  At the same time, if one supports deep cuts in GHG emissions and economic responsibility, BLW's failure was a good thing... and we ought to keep this dichotomy in place as we look towards future bills.

I personally am delighted that the democrats appear to be on the verge of control, as we need their social responsibility.  But that does not need to come at the expense of economic responsibility.  

All this talk about the "new American economy" and how clean technology will be the future should be a flare shot in the dark to all the "dirty" industries that times of change are approaching.

If gas companies wish to have a future they must diversify their portfolio to include cleaner fuel. The cement industry must find a "greener" alternative or a cleaner method to make their product. Coal power plan companies must invest on wind, solar, geothermal, etc if they want to provide power for the America of the future.

Protecting American jobs now is important but stalling technology or a transition to a cleaner and better future is futile. Should we stop making cars because it put carriage makers out of business? Should we stop using light bulbs because they hurt the candle makers?

Should we stop using [fill in the blank] because it put someone else out of business? The answer is no.

These companies must evolve or transition with the times or they'll become an old and extinct technology that has been replaced by something newer and better.

Stopping and reversing human-caused global climate change, or supporting businesses and workers who are causing it in order to allow them to make money?  Sure, industries could and should be created or, in some cases expanded, that are less environmentally harmful, like the solar and wind power industries.  But the priority should be the environment, not money.

and sometimes that means compromises.

Its not good vs better courses of action, its doing things that will work in the wider world outside environmentalist circles vs things that won't work.