It is great when individual conservatives take good positions on stuff. But, as some of your own recent posts make clear, you are not going to get the conservative movement as whole to move, at least not until after you have won.

In general to solve global warming will require more than just pricing. And even conservatives who buy into pricing are unlikely to buy into anything else. See McCain. Again there may be individual exceptions.

I think in the end climate chaos is not an issue that transcends left and right. A majority of the right still won't even acknowledge the problem. Those who will mostly oppose the best solutions. The occasional maverick should be welcomed, but ultimately the fight over climate change will have to ally with some political tendency. And I think our chances for survival will get screwed very heavily if that political tendency is the right.

use your common sense

Sen C is not sincere; he is cynical

he thinks it is a wingnut lefty idea that he can use to try to sow dissention and embarrsssment

a poison pill

tells you just how loony he thinks the idea is

he is laughing at you

The Corker amendments are considered "poison pills" by the Democrats, who are eager to get credit for passing something, anything, to look good. Returning tax revenues to citizens is something both left and right believe in. Limiting use of offsets abroad is a way of preventing cheating, which goes with offsets like beer goes with pretzels. And imposing high tariffs on carbon-intensive imports is being considered by the EU, hardly a hotbed of either lefties or righties. Rest assured that Democrats will call Corker insincere and cynical , because he reveals clearly the disastrous failings of the Boxer-Warner bill which the Dems (the REAL cynics) want to get brownie points for since it makes them look busy. Were the enviros in DC honest they would have been opposing this crumby bill long ago. Were the rest of us not so cynical we would have held their feet to the fire. Let's support Corker, and also Edward Markey whose bill would start the shutdown of all US coal powered plants...the first and most important order of business by  the way. Coal will be shut down if we can make it more and more expensive: end subsidies, force the utilities to bear the full costs of sequestration research, tax carbon, put mandatory annual emissions reductions on all coal powered plants, require auction of permits (if we cant stop cap and trade entirely) with rebates to the public. Once you do this, renewables will compete on a level playing field. When coal gets too pricey renewables will be cheaper for the utilties than sequestration.

I agree the bill is crumy, allocating $6.7 trillion of future allowance values to a hodgepodge of beneficiaries, few of whom will use the money to reduce GHG emissions.  But be careful that your own thinking is equally wrong, by picking the bad and good technologies instead of focusing on performance.

Coal's carbon release per million Btus is only slighlty higher than oil.  Natural gas is 56% of coal, but still responsible for a great deal of carbon dioxide, especially when powering a 33% efficient electric system.

Focus on performance - Carbon per unit of useful energy output.  There are more ways to clean energy than renewable, and they lower the cost of power as well.

No one - congress or bloggers - can predict the best and cleanest technologies or determine the lowest cost ways to lower carbon.  Stick with performance, insist Congress sticks with performance measures, and let the market determine how to best meet the performance requirements

Tom Casten

Tom Casten, Chair, Recycled Energy Development LLC

I don't know if I'd call the elimination of international offsets as a common progressive/enviro position.  More progressives (like myself) argue that investing a chunk of available funds in renewable energy and forestry projects overseas is an efficient and just way to deal with climate change.  While they should not be the only solutions, they are an important tool in the toolbox.  Funds from US-based offsets could go a long way towards supporting poor countries in their efforts to develop more sustainable economies, reduce deforestation, increase forest cover, etc.  At the same time, the goal is typically to work in areas of extreme poverty where people rely very heavily on their natural resource base for their survival.

I am currently researching a project by CARE in Guatemala that is doing wondrous things with very little money to improve land use and livelihoods of extremely poor people

I would add that deforestation, which occurs mostly in poor countries in the tropics, creates the same amount of emissions as the world's cars and trucks do.  Therefore, this deforestation is something that needs serious attention.  What better way then through investment from high-quality offset projects?  It is a viable, sensible conduit for such activities.