I agree with National Environmental Trust's John Stanton that the growing public awareness and the more drastic circumstances now supported by the science call for stronger, not weaker legislation.  I believe that we are going to find that the feedback loops are going to increase the levels of CO2 and other GHG like methane faster and with more dire consequences even at the mid-level scenerios of temperature change that have been projected by mainstream reports: ocean current disruptions, melting permafrost over tundra, and extreme weather events.

 It turns out that Ross Gelbspan was right in "Boiling Point." The worries over feedback loop effects were also laid out very well in Jeremy Leggett's underappreciated "The Carbon War," first published in 1999.

Poor Apollo Alliance seems to be falling more and more out of the picture to shape a sharper overall national energy and jobs legislative thrust.  

National Wildlife Federation's Larry Schweiger had once suggested, at the big Pew conference in the summer of 2004, that the level of existing subsidies in the old carbon industries (oil, gas, coal, and nuclear) were on the level of $30-40 billion per year.  Eliminating them and targeting them in the directions we want, the Apollo directions, would seem to be logical.  Is that called for in any of the bills?