you (and other progressives) are so easily played.  some senior staffer pats you on the head and says you are an insider, and you think you know something

this is a predictable attack on behalf of big oil and coal and nukes  (predicted, in fact)

part of a maneuver by Energy Comm working together with senior Dem staff AND Repub staff

the game is to embarrass the girl senator and build support in the caucus to move climate bills to the Energy Comm next year

that will mean less aggressive targets, safety valve, preemption, big CCS little alternative energy, etc

how hard is it to get a trade press rag like Roll Call to print gossip?

Until progressives recognize the special interests behind the Energy Comm (how hard can this be to figure out?), they will not even see what is happening in front of them

a power play is going on.  it involves next year.  and it is intended to move the climate bill far to the right

you think the Prez is going to ride to the rescue next year; the Prez will be along for the ride; the energy boys will control both the House and the Senate

"With the country in the grips of near-hysteria over soaring gasoline prices, Congress begins debate Monday on landmark climate legislation that critics say will substantially increase energy costs - and not produce any of the intended environmental benefits. "It seems unlikely that as American families face harsh economic times that any Senator would dare stand on the Senate floor and vote in favor of significantly increasing the price of gas at the pump and cost millions of American jobs - all for no environmental gain," says Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a long time climate change skeptic, who still favors a full and open debate." --Kenneth Stiier, CNBC News, 30 May 2008

Climate change sceptics, such as Nigel Lawson, are wrong when they question the science. But they will find a ready audience for their claim that the economics of limiting it are anyway unaffordable. The conditions are in place for climate change to slip behind jobs, growth and the cost of petrol as a priority. Cutting emissions will not win back Labour's lost voters in Crewe. But it must be done. This is the moment for courage. There are reasons to fear it may be lacking.  --The Guardian, 26 May 2008

More than seven in 10 voters insist that they would not be willing to pay higher taxes in order to fund projects to combat climate change, according to a new poll. The survey also reveals that most Britons believe "green" taxes on 4x4s, plastic bags and other consumer goods have been imposed to raise cash rather than change our behaviour, while two-thirds of Britons think the entire green agenda has been hijacked as a ploy to increase taxes.  --Colin Brown, The Independent, 2 May 2008

With a slowing economy, escalating food prices and energy prices climbing ever higher, you might think that Republican presidential candidate John McCain would be hesitant to endorse a European Union-style carbon emission trading scheme that seems likely to result in less economic growth, higher energy prices and higher food prices from increased biofuel demand. But that's because you don't know him as well as his daughter, Meghan McCain, who says he's totally freaking out over global warming.   --John Carney, 12 May 2008

McCain's actual goals for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions - 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 - fall well short of the cuts that many climate scientists deem necessary to avoid a 2 degree C rise in temperatures above pre-industrial levels. And once that happens, we risk runaway warming as feedback effects start kicking in, and, from there, droughts, heat waves, rising sea levels, the works.  --Bradford Plumer, The New Republic, 13 May 2008

Something guys might not get ...

But as for "they can no longer see the political realities": Sadly, that sort of thing is typical, and maybe inevitable, in a democracy.  And, sadly, this election year is looking to be one of those depressing episodes of failure, in the history of a (sometimes) great democracy.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

anyone who thought the federal politicians would lead -- when they're owned and operated by the dregs of world industry, who've for years innovated through their legal departments and public sector–embedded employees -- i pity you -- you must be suffering. they're not worth it, though.

if this crop weren't ignorant future-blind doormats, the iraq invasion wouldn't have happened.

SIX unnamed sources. Is there a Golden Razzy for journalism?

I mean, "Senate GOP leadership aide"? Sounds a lot more credible than if she'd said "Joe Shmoe, chief of staff for McConnell or Inhofe," doesn't it? Nice that Emily Pierce is willing to give them cover.

http://www.nwf.org

The basic design of this bill is pure fossil, agribizz fuel farming, and nuclear power lobbyist diversion and delay leavened with plenty of pork.

There is nothing in it to defend except the vague notion of trying to address GHG climate change and soaring imported energy prices.

Vague notions won't lower gas prices or stop climate disaster.  A clear plan is needed, to target scarce subsidy dollars to the right technologies, while withdrawing subsidies from oil, coal, agrizz, and nuclear industries to pay for it all.

It has to be tax neutral, no new taxes.  That will keep gas prices from soaring due to energy policy reform.

This is a huge issue being handed over to Rove/McCain.  We should benefit from this most powerful political issue, high gas prices.  But with this ham handed, desperate move to back a bill orginated by a republican and a worse-than-republican traitor (Lie-berman), we are playing right into Rove's strategery.

Gas price swiftboating, get used to it.  It will make the swing voters forget who has been responsible for miring the economy in debt to oil suppliers and oil war contractors.

This will be seen as a big loss for environmentalists and set the stage for the swiftboating.  Beware.  This is the same strategery used by the congressman from big auto to kill us.

He backed a boost in CAFE standards in order to kill the whole idea.  Now GM is halting production of giant gas guzzlers on an emergency basis.  Bottomline corporate energy policy is leading straight to economic disaster.

Cap and trade will raise energy prices and won't halt GHG disaster or soaring energy prices.  It is the corporate/hedge fund bone hidden in this  diversionary stew.

Wait for Barack to lead on energy.  It is the only way to go now.  Go for broke.

Meanwhile we need to get the really effective policy pieces to him, in an end run around the lobbyists swarming in to the feeding frenzy.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

If Dems are gonna be wimpy about it, then don't pass this bill during an election year.

Pass it after you have the Presidency and a wider margin in the Senate.

getting to the floor does not just happen

it goes through committee first

what committee?

the staging you see is to push the bill right

you do not understand:  committee juris = policy

the girl senator is being assassinated by other Dems.  it is orchestrated

do not be gullible -- as you usually are not

...I hope I don't sound like a broken record, but:

This is the advantage of targeted, direct government investment in projects that directly lead to lower carbon emissions -- high speed rail, subways, bus rapid transit, yada yada -- plus, Berkeley-type financing of homeowner PV, heck, just put up wind farms, and take over the grid and build HVDC, etc. etc.

According to a study DR posted a while back, the public seems more open to investment (not "breakthrough" investment, investment) than carbon pricing.

"Democrats would love to bypass the economic portion of this debate and make it about who supports the environment, but Republicans will be focused on the effect this legislation will have on Americans' pocketbooks," one Senate GOP leadership aide said."

This is what the global warming issue boils down to, folks, just as it does for every environmental and ecological issue.  You prioritize either the Earth or money.

Senators and presidents are supposed to be leaders.  While I realize that they're usually not, it is still infuriating to see and hear them pander to popular opinion when they should know better than average people who myopically can't see beyond their own selfish interests.  What the public needs to be told is this:

"We've based this society on burning fuels in order to transport ourselves and goods long distances, and to create artificial energy for things from heating and air conditioning to lighting and computers, as well as other industrial processes needed to manufacture things.  We now realize that burning fuels of any type, including biofuels, emits so much carbon dioxide that we are causing a significant warming of our planet that has already caused extinctions and desertification, and will be ecologically catastrophic if not reversed.  For that reason, we need to substantially change our behaviors in order to greatly lessen the carbon dioxide that we emit.  We will begin this transition with, among other things, a carbon tax.  This tax will, unfortunately, cause the price of fuels to rise.  We realize that many of you are struggling financially, but all we can do is to strongly advise you to organize your life so that you don't need to drive much or use a lot of energy: live near your job and grocery shopping, move into a smaller home if you live in a large one, properly insulate your home, move to warmer climates where you will use less heat and be willing to use fans instead of air conditioners, and invest in solar panels for your roofs."

For those who prioritize money over the Earth, someday they will be forced to eat, drink, and breathe their money.  Unfortunately, so will the rest of the planet.

"This is what the global warming issue boils down to, folks, just as it does for every environmental and ecological issue. You prioritize either the Earth or money sunk costs."