That the objection is to the bathwater rather than the baby.  I personally am completely convinced that a good GHG policy will stimulate the economy and lower emissions.  But I am no less convinced that every GHG policy currently floated in DC will be economically crippling.  

I don't know how to parse McCaskill's comments either.  But if she is throwing this in the hope of getting Congress to get beyond anything that looks vaguely like Lieberman-Warner (or Kyoto, or RGGI) and replace it with something that provides a clear consistent signal to lower GHG's and stimulate all sorts of conservation, efficiency, and renewables in the process without any technological prejudice, then I'm in favor.  I may also be grossly naive.

FYI, both Peabody Energy and Arch Coal are headquartered in St. Louis. Peabody is in an ugly office tower downtown, and Arch Coal is in an equally ugly office tower in Clayton, an upscale suburb of St. Louis, which features it's own compact, high-rise DT. Oh, and AmerenUE, the regional electric utility, is also located in the City of St. Louis. Seems Claire is going a little off res. First, yesterday and the ill-timed though understandable objection to the pay packet for fed judges, and now we learn of this. I would rather she had a Eureka! moment and realised the advantages of everyone in our state owning a piece of their own generating device: solar PV, solar thermal water heating, farmer's get biogas/biomnass, industry and commercial buildings get regen. And we all contribute to the grid. Which probably drives down the value of Peabody and Arch Coal, in addition to reducing the size of AmerenUE. And so it goes...(Thank you Linda Ellerbee)

The mellotron is your friend.