I'm prepared to fight for this fake snow, damn it. Media hype aside, John McCain was always a self-important blowhard. But didn't he used to care a little bit about substantial issues--and even once sponsor climate legislation in defiance of an oil-satuarated White House?

As Grist's Jon Hiskes recently pointed out, McCain has completely crumbled on the issue of climate change since his resounding defeat last year. Now that climate legislation actually has a chance to pass--albeit in a deplorably diluted state--McCain has taken to mumbling Palinesque denialist platitudes.

So what is it that gets the great man's notorious ire up these days? What makes him rage and fume, thunder and roar?

The right of a private company to generate fake snow on an Arizona mountaintop. On national park land, in a spot considered sacred by Native Americans.

The ironies are almost too intense to ponder in this holiday time. A man who once championed action to avert disastrous planetary warning now sticks his neck out in defense of burning fossil fuel to generate fake snow on public land -- in defiance of Native Americans.

I always thought McCain, with his short fuse, right-wing politics, and (puzzling) ability to charm reporters, was a disaster waiting to happen. Now he's morphed into grotesque self-caricature.

Related Links:

On “climategate”

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

FOX News and TrollCat agree: Global warming is BUNK!

You could make a pretty simple argument that the fate of the world rests with the United States Senate Republicans:

1. It takes 60 votes to pass a climate bill in the U.S. Senate (assuming it won’t be done through budget reconciliation). Getting the votes of all 58 Democrats and two Independents will be just plain tough, as they might say in the Blue Dog states.

2. It takes 67 Senate votes to ratify an international climate treaty. That requires Republican votes.

3. The international community isn’t likely to pass a climate treaty without the cooperation of the United States.

4. The world needs the Senate Republicans.

The hope is that enough of the most (relatively) independent-minded ones can be peeled away from the obstructionist line and cajoled into supporting a first-step climate bill. That’s why it’s problematic that John McCain (R-Arizona) is acting like anything but a maverick on the issue.

There’s been some interesting reporting on the McCain front today.

Before his most recent presidential run, McCain had long been a leader on taking climate change seriously and doing something about it. He and Joe Lieberman authored the first major climate bill in the Senate in 2003 and introduced new versions in 2005 and 2007. 

POLITICO summarizes his about-face:

Now the Arizona Republican is more likely to repeat GOP talking points on cap and trade than to help usher the bill through the thorny politics of the Senate.

McCain refers to the bill as “cap and tax,” calls the climate legislation that passed the House in June “a 1,400-page monstrosity” and dismisses a cap-and-trade proposal included in the White House budget as “a government slush fund.”

The shift even has former McCain aids “mystified.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), the only Senate Republican who’s shown real interest this fall in working with Democrats to craft a climate bill, tells POLITICO, “I wouldn’t be here on this issue without him … He’s the guy that introduced me to the climate problem.”

More bad news: McCain is vulnerable to a primary challenge from the right, according to a new Rasmussen poll. Matt Yglesias concludes:

This seems like pretty much terrible news for the world. The most likely path between Point A and Senate passage of a reasonable climate bill is for McCain to rediscover his interest in the issue. But that’s not the sort of thing a Senator worried about a right-wing primary challenge is likely to do.

For more on the way it used to be: Grist’s interview and overview of McCain’s environmental record from last year’s campaign show how he’s changed his position on a climate plan.

And don’t expect the Republican dynamic to change soon, according to Greenwire. Reporter Alex Kaplun takes a look at upcoming primaries and finds candidates courting the Republican base by taking hard-line positions against a climate bill. His sources say “the general trajectory of the Republican Party as whole for the foreseeable future will be toward opposition of the climate bill.”

All this still amounts to reading tea leaves on where McCain will be if the Senate ever gets around to voting on a climate bill. Maybe he’s still working through some post-election blues. Maybe, over time, he’ll be drawn to playing a constructive role again.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow

Conventional wisdom says that the Kerry-Boxer clean energy bill faces a long uphill slog against unlikely odds. Many Senators, especially those in the "center," think it's unpopular. They think it will raise prices during a recession. They think it will unfairly hurt their states. They see little political upside and lots of possible downside.

Here's the thing about Beltway CW, though: it always forecasts delay, difficulty, and failure. And it's always right. Until it's wrong. As Al Gore is fond of saying, politics, like climate, is nonlinear. An accretion of small changes can build beneath the surface of the news cycle and emerge unexpectedly as a rapid shift. The odds in Vegas may still be against the bill, but there are reasons for cautious optimism. Seven of them, actually.

-----

1. Key Republican support is already in place, as Sen. Lindsey Graham takes to The New York Times editorial page with John Kerry to offer full-throated support for passing clean energy legislation this year:

It’s true that we come from different parts of the country and represent different constituencies and that we supported different presidential candidates in 2008. We even have different accents. But we speak with one voice in saying that the best way to make America stronger is to work together to address an urgent crisis facing the world.

Graham has been making noises, but this is thunder. The Kerry bill will not be able to pass without at least a little Republican support giving cover to conservative Dems. Graham is offering that cover early in the legislative process.

He's also made the price clear: more support for nuclear and offshore drilling. That's odious, but less odious that it appears at first blush, and an affordable price relative to the benefits of passing a bill.

Snowe and Collins are likely yes votes. With Graham so far out ahead on this, McCain may be shamed into joining him (though he's far from a sure thing). Together they could get a second hearing from other Senators like Isakson who love nuclear power. (Alexander's probably a lost cause now that he's in leadership.) Their combined influence, coupled with his longstanding relationship with Obama, could pull Lugar over. In Florida, Crist could see this as part of his legacy and influence LeMieux to get behind it. At some point you can imagine a snowball effect, though the odds of breaking five Republican yea votes are still fairly low.

2. Health care reform might just work out after all. The Finance Committee finally passed a bill, it was scored favorably by the CBO, and floor debate approaches. After what seems like an eternity, there's finally some consensus and momentum. It's possible to imagine a bill passing in the next couple months. When that train leaves the station it will (finally!) free up much-needed Senate staff attention for when the clean energy train pulls in. It will clear the deck for Finance to mark up the Kerry bill (if Baucus decides he wants to, God help us all).

If a good healthcare bill is signed into law, it will have an enormous boost on morale and generate further momentum.

3. The public wants this bill. Conservative Dems are behind the times. They haven't been keeping up with the latest polling, which shows that clean energy reform is broadly popular, even in swing states. Recent focus groups show that the right's "energy tax" attack isn't working. It gets crushed by the message that America needs to take control of its future, cut dependence on unfriendly countries, and create new jobs. Americans want it to get done and they're willing to pay for it. Clean energy in particular is wildly popular -- a recent poll found that "77% of Americans feel the federal government should make solar power development a national priority, including the financial support needed."

There's a good story to tell even about the most carbon intensive states. They are protected in the bill by consumer rebates and allowance money for trade-exposed industries. Every state has enormous potential for efficiency, and according to a new report:

At least three-fifths of the fifty states could meet all their internal electricity needs from renewable energy generated inside their borders. Every state with a renewable energy mandate can meet it with in-state renewable fuels.

Clean energy reform has potential benefits for every state and area of the country. It's a winning political issue.

4. International pressure is becoming intense. Obama's Nobel Peace Prize can be seen, at least in part, as a reward for taking the U.S. in a new direction on climate change. Accepting the prize will put him in Oslo on Dec. 10, right next door to Copenhagen, just as international climate talks begin there. Hint, hint.

Once upon a time the lack of action in China and other rapidly developing countries could be used as an excuse for delay in Congress, but that too is quickly changing. China is moving. Japan is moving. Indonesia is moving. Even India is moving (see also). Developing countries have made it clear that they're willing to be part of a global system of emission reductions. Global green campaigns like 350.org and TckTckTck are building cross-cultural consensus around a set of baseline metrics. Everyone is waiting for the U.S. to step up. That puts enormous pressure on Obama to deliver the goods, which he can't do without Senate support.

5. The administration is engaged. The administration has been criticized by greens for neglecting clean energy in favor of health care, and it's true that with the exception of his U.N. speech Obama has mostly focused his public remarks elsewhere. Still, the accusation isn't entirely fair: there's an extraordinary level of engagement on clean energy legislation at the cabinet level, probably more so than on health. Browner, Chu, and Jackson have been advocating for the bill and meeting individually with Senators for months.

What's missing so far is the full force of Obama's personal popularity and persuasiveness, the most powerful forces in American politics. Everyone agrees the outcome in the Senate will at least somewhat turn on the level of his involvement.

6. Greens are getting their act together at last. The formation of the Clean Energy Works coalition a month ago presaged a period of relatively happy media news for greens. Some of it was the Chamber of Commerce stepping on rakes, but some credit goes to a more consistent message and concerted efforts to highlight stereotype-busting greens like veterans and business execs. There are targeted ad campaigns, media stunts (from groups like the Avaaz Action Factory, Greenpeace, and MoveOn), and a growing grassroots youth movement (see: Energy Action Coalition's PowerShift 09) making noise. It's getting loud enough that even Congress can hear.

7. The business community is divided, as recent defections from the Chamber of Commerce demonstrate. More and more CEOs realize that the demographic they most covet -- young people -- cares about climate change, expects companies to be environmentally prudent, and expresses that opinion in purchasing decisions. Being backwards on climate is bad branding and bad business.

Ten years ago, every hot-sh*t entrepreneur, engineer, and investor wanted to change the web. Today they want to change the grid. They understand that clean energy legislation will unlock enormous business opportunities. Big companies want to get their hands on those opportunities, which is why they're actively lobbying for a bill.

When Chamber of Commerce president Thomas Donahue, a guy sitting comfortably at the center of an old boys network of long standing, finds himself offering defensive, incoherent pabulum on the subject of climate change and whining about big mean environmental groups ... something has changed.

----

Given the brittle system by which legislation is passed in the U.S., with all its chokepoints and 60-vote mega-majority minimums, failure is always a safe bet. Despite all the heated talk about what Obama must "demand," the truth is that the fate of this bill (and everything that hinges on it) lies with a small handful of Senators, Republicans and conservative Democrats who aren't accountable to him or his agenda. Their political concerns are more idiosyncratic.

Nonetheless, there is a clear path from here to passage. If everything goes right and the Senate is willing to step up to history, it could happen.

Related Links:

Climate Hope: Inspiring 2009 Books for Clean Energy

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The greenosphere is all abuzz with the news that a few Republican Senators, led by Lindsey Graham (S.C.), have signaled that they're open to coming around on the climate bill if certain conditions are met. In classic form, Senate Dems have responded by rushing to signal they they are willing -- eager, even! -- to give these Republicans whatever they want.

This isn't actually huge news. Graham and John McCain (R-Ariz.) have been fence-sitters for a while, and it's never been a mystery what could bring them over. Graham's public statements just mark the beginning of the bargaining process. Anyway, Bill Scher and Brad Plumer have covered this pretty well. I'd just add two things.

First, if Dems are going to compromise, they should secure real commitments in return.

Senate Dems (Barbara Boxer in particular) are notorious for telling their interlocutors that they can have whatever concession they are seeking -- without getting, in exchange, any firm commitment to support the resulting bill. What happens then is that said interlocutors take what they got, put it in the bank, and immediately resume badmouthing the bill and asking for more.

This is in sharp contrast to Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass) in the House, who may have given all sorts of goodies to Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), but by God got their yea votes in return. In fact, Boucher and Peterson did yeomen's work whipping for the bill on the floor.

If Graham, McCain, et al want their nukes and their offshore drilling, John Kerry (D-Mass.) should get their solemn pledge that they will support the bill in the face of what is sure to be immense pressure from their base to bail. Vocal, public support from the likes of Graham and McCain could shift the debate in a huge way and possibly bring several more Republicans along.

Secondly, Dems should compromise with money, not architecture.

There are at least five Senate Dems that are certain no votes on the climate bill. That means you need at least five Republican yeas. To get them, there are going to have to be provisions for nuclear power and offshore drilling. There's no getting around it. But I don't think things are so bleak for those who oppose both those purported solutions to our energy troubles. As long as the compromises do not mandate nukes and drilling, or write them into the architecture of the bill, things should turn out all right.

On offshore drilling, the politics are trending toward opening up new areas for leasing. Once the price of oil and gasoline rises high enough, political pressure will be irresistible. Might as well use it as a bargaining chip while there's still something to get in exchange. As Joe Romm has argued, the fact is that even if the federal and state moratoria on drilling were lifted, there's not a lot of reasons to think oil companies will want to lease these areas. They're not as ignorant on this subject as the GOP and most of the public -- they know these areas represent huge investments of time and money for not much payoff. That's why there are already tons of available leases in the Gulf going unexploited.

So on offshore drilling, you have the makings of what could look like a huge concession from Dems, but could turn out to have fairly modest real-world consequences.

Nuclear has always been a strange subject. Its backers say, "nuclear can work, once we solve those pesky siting, cost, and waste issues." Its opponents say, "nuclear can work, but only if we solve those pesky siting, cost, and waste issues." The differences between them aren't that large. It's just that nuke proponents think the pesky problems can be solved, and nuclear opponents don't.

So the key on a nuclear compromise is not to mess with the basic architecture of the bill. Specifically, Dems should resist efforts to let new nuclear plants qualify as satisfying the Renewable Energy Standard (RES).

They could increase loan guarantees and smooth out regulatory issues around siting and permitting. They could establish some sort of expert panel to figure out a waste solution. They could even make nukes eligible for the same tax credits and subsidies offered to renewables. What these compromises have in common is that they make federal assistance available if a utility wants to build nuclear plants. They do not mandate or fully fund such plants.

So if you're a nuclear opponent and you believe that nuclear plants are never going to attract sufficient private capital, it follows that you think the result of these concessions will be ... not much. Maybe a couple of new plants. Nothing like the silly 100 plants McCain and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) keep talking about.

(Side note: Reid will never, ever concede on nuclear issues until Yucca Mountain is taken completely off the table.)

Point is, both these compromises amount to less than they appear. And if they manage to attract enough Republicans to get the bill through, I will be mind-bogglingly shocked and surprised. It would be a small price to pay, and frankly I've been expecting -- and still expect, really -- a much higher price tag.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

John McCain

Sen. John McCain was, of course, one of the earliest congressional supporters of cap-and-trade, cosponsoring the first two pieces of climate legislation to come to the floor of the Senate in 2003 and 2005. During his campaign for president last year, he regularly touted his support for climate action.

But McCain did not explicitly back the climate bill that the Senate debated last year, citing a desire for more support for nuclear power, and he wasn't around when the chamber voted on whether to move forward with the bill.

Now that the guy who beat him in the race for the White House is pushing to get climate legislation passed, McCain is being far less supportive.

At an energy summit in April, McCain railed against Obama's plan to fight greenhouse-gas emissions, calling it "irresponsible, ill-conceived." “What the Obama administration has proposed is not cap-and-trade,” he said. “It’s cap-and-tax.” McCain's main complaint was that Obama wanted to auction off all pollution permits; McCain, in contrast, called for the vast majority of permits to be distributed free of charge to emitters to help them transition to a low-carbon economy.

But while McCain didn't like Obama's preferred approach, the climate bill the House passed in June should be more to his liking -- it would give away the majority of permits.

Track the debate and take action >>>

McCain recently told Roll Call that he is working on climate change legislation with Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) once again. "I have not lost my zeal to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions," he said. Yet he doesn't seem to want to work with the Democratic majority. "I don’t think [Democratic leaders] have any Republicans" on board with their climate plans, he added.

Do you know more about this senator's stance on climate legislation? Tell us.

Find out about other senators by clicking on their names in the right column.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow

What to make of the new climate poll

Lamar Alexander unveils his plan.Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) on Monday called for 100 new nuclear power plants over the next 20 years as the central element of a climate and energy plan that Republicans intend to introduce in the Senate. In presenting the plan, he shot down the possibility that he would work with Democrats to craft compromise climate and energy legislation.

Just a few days ago, Alexander seemed willing to work with Dems on a bill if it included major support for nuclear power. But at a press conference on Monday, he argued that the approach used in the recently passed House climate bill "needs to be junked," and said he wouldn't support passage of a similar plan in the Senate even if it included incentives for more nuclear power. "It's unfixable," said Alexander.

Instead, Alexander, who chairs the Senate Republican Conference, is promoting a separate "four-step low-cost clean energy plan," which he says other GOP senators are backing. Nuclear power is the central component, but the blueprint also calls for development of electric vehicles, expanded offshore exploration for oil and natural gas, and increased funding for the research and development of renewable energy.

"We Americans invented [nuclear] technology," said Alexander. "Isn't it about time we got back into the game?"

A vastly expanded nuclear industry would "create jobs, lower utility bills, and put the United States within the goals of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming by 2030 without the expensive cap-and-trade and renewable mandates passed by the House of Representatives two weeks ago," said Alexander. He called the House bill "a job-killing, $100-billion-a-year national energy tax" that "will raise utility bills and send jobs overseas looking for cheap energy."

Since when was nuclear cheap?

In reality, the Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency estimate that the House climate bill would cost households less than 50 cents per day.

Nuclear power plants, on the other hand, are extremely expensive -- and Alexander doesn't seem to mind sticking average Americans with the bill. A press release on Alexander's website notes that "the Republican energy plan should not add to the federal budget since ratepayers will pay for building the plants."

That cost could be exorbitant. A study released last month [PDF] by economist Mark Cooper, senior fellow at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School, found that building and operating 100 new nuclear reactors would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of the reactors than would generating the same electricity from renewables and energy efficiency. And taxpayers would have to foot the bill for loan guarantees for the nuclear industry, as the private sector has been unwilling to make big investments in the sector.

There are currently 104 nuclear plants up and running in the U.S., but no new reactors have been built in the country since 1996. On June 30, nuclear giant Exelon announced that it is delaying plans for two reactors in Texas indefinitely, citing economic concerns.

Nuclear power faces other hurdles as well. It takes about a decade to bring new nuclear plants online, so they can't help with short-term energy shortages. Also, concerns about safe storage and disposal of nuclear waste have yet to be adequately addressed.

Another big worry is that nuclear reactors consume large amounts of water for cooling -- up to 830 gallons of freshwater per megawatt-hour of power produced. Most of that water is returned to the source, but at a higher temperature. If the water is too warm to start with -- as it was in France during the mega–heat wave of 2003 -- then it's of no use for cooling reactors and they could have to be temporarily shut down. And as climate change triggers more droughts, there may also be a shortage of water available for cooling reactors.

The nuclear option?

Though Alexander has said that he won't play ball with Dems even if they add support for nuclear power to a climate and energy bill, other Republicans still might. At a hearing last week in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) joined Alexander in calling for nuclear to play a big role in a climate and energy package.

Nuclear could also be a deal-maker or deal-breaker for John McCain (R-Ariz.), who cosponsored the earliest climate bills in the Senate. Last year, he said the Lieberman-Warner climate bill should include more support for nuclear power (he didn't end up voting on the bill because he was on the road campaigning for president). Alexander's new plan goes further than McCain's campaign proposal for nuclear, which called for 45 new reactors by 2030, scaling up to 100 by an unspecified later date.

If Alexander's announcement Monday is any indication, though, hopes are fading that nuclear provisions might attract GOP support for a bipartisan climate and energy bill.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow

Here's a curious development for you: Brian Rogers, spokesperson for John McCain's presidential campaign last year, is now working for Al Gore.

Rogers sent an email dispatch on Friday announcing his new job as research director for Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection. In the email, Rogers said he will be "working on the Repower America campaign to pass comprehensive energy and climate change legislation."

On the campaign trail last year, Rogers' shining moments included attacking Barack Obama for opposing increased domestic oil and gas production, arguing that Obama lived in "a frickin' mansion" that was "bought in a shady deal with a convicted felon," and insinuating that Obama is an "arugula-eating, pointy headed professor-type."

I guess we're supposed to say something about strange bedfellows here ...

UPDATE: TPMDC got a reaction from Rogers' former coworker, McCain campaign deputy communications director Michael Goldfarb: "Everybody knew Rogers was a tree-hugger, but I didn't think he'd take it this far. He's dead to me."

Ouch.

Related Links:

For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

Climate talks timeline: From 350 to Kyoto to Copenhagen and beyond

I see John McCain is upset by the fact that Obama wants to auction 100% of cap-and-trade permits. He wants the vast bulk of the permits to be given away to businesses.

There are lots of complicated, obscure issues around carbon policy, but this is not one of them. Let's be very very clear about what this means: McCain favors the interests of industry over the interests of consumers.

This is the giveaway quote: "At this time of economic hardship, it is beyond irresponsible to further raise costs of the operation of this country's businesses."

The alternative, of course, is to raise the cost of living for consumers. It's a clear cut choice.

First, let's clear up a common confusion. McCain says that auctioning permits will "allow for little or no transition into a low-carbon system." That is straightforwardly false: the cap forces a low-carbon system. The cap does the environmental work. How the permits are allocated is not an environmental issue, it's an economic issue. It's about distribution -- who pays.

Someone will pay. When the price of emitting CO2 rises, someone pays the increased costs. If costs are raised and no further action is taken, fossil energy providers and fossil-intensive manufacturers will pass along the increased costs -- consumers will pay. Giving permits away will not prevent this -- consumer costs will rise whether permits are auctioned or given away.

If the government auctions the permits, it raises revenue with which it can offset or erase the burden on consumers: through direct rebates, through investments in energy efficiency (which lower power bills), through investments in clean power that accelerate its availability.

If the government gives away the permits, businesses raise prices anyway, reap enormous windfall profits, and consumers bear the full burden. That's what McCain wants.

I return again to this graph from the Congressional Budget Office:

From March 2009 CBO testimony to Congress

This charts the distributional consequences of auctioning vs. freely allocating permits. On the left, auctioning. On the far right, freely allocating. (For more, see this post.) As you can see, auctioning (and transferring the value to consumers) benefits the poor and working class, while putting most of the cost burden on upper income quintiles. Giving away permits puts the burden on the bottom four quintiles and overwhelmingly benefits the most wealthy.

That's what McCain is advocating for: a system that primarily benefits the very wealthy.

Don't be misled by all the rhetoric: This is a classic dispute between the left, which thinks economies prosper when more wealth is in the hands of the poor and middle class, and the right, which thinks economies prosper to the extent they benefit the rich.

Related Links:

For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow

What to make of the new climate poll

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

Sen. John McCain says he's still a proud proponent of using a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, but he's not going to back President Barack Obama's climate agenda any time soon.

McCain, coauthor of multiple cap-and-trade bills in the past, addressed an energy symposium sponsored by the Reform Institute on Tuesday. In his remarks, he called for bipartisanship on climate and energy policy -- but offered scathing criticism of the Obama administration's plans, calling them "irresponsible, ill-conceived."

"The budget the president recently put forward undermines our ability to work in a bipartisan fashion on this issue," said McCain. "The president and his administration have risked our country's economic future with a tax, borrow, and spend policy of historic proportions."

"What the Obama administration has proposed is not cap-and-trade," he continued. "It's cap-and-tax."

McCain's main concern is that Obama calls for all of the emission credits in his cap-and-trade plan to be auctioned off to polluters, rather than dispersed free of cost. The Obama plan would bring in tens of billions a year in revenues from auctioning credits, the majority of which would be returned to citizens through tax rebates. It would also dedicate $15 billion per year to energy investments.

"The president's proposal of auctioning 100 percent of the carbon credits is bad economic policy that would cost businesses billions of dollars and allow for little or no transition into a low-carbon system," said McCain. "Let me be clear. I am a supporter of a strong cap-and-trade system, but I will not and cannot align myself with a giant government slush fund that will further burden our businesses and consumers." McCain said he favored "a limited number of credits" being auctioned off to help fund a cap-and-trade program, but he argued that the vast majority should be distributed to emitters free of charge.

"At this time of economic hardship, it is beyond irresponsible to further raise costs of the operation of this country's businesses," he continued. "I still believe that it is the time to address this critical international issue, but my vision for a cap-and-trade system is as a mechanism to lower greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, not as a revenue generator for the federal government."

McCain contended that the Obama administration is trying to create a "slush fund to pay for health-care reform or other social programs that fit with this administration's agenda" -- despite the fact that Obama's plan clearly spells out that the money should be spent on consumer rebates and energy technology. (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said last month that he was open to the possibility of using auction revenues to fund health care, but later backed away from the idea.)

McCain also wants support for the nuclear-power industry in a climate bill. "You have no complete answer without nuclear power," he said. And he criticized the Obama administration for cutting funding for the proposed nuclear-waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nev., saying the admin "refuses to deal with the issue of nuclear-waste storage."

McCain will be a key figure in negotiations over a climate bill. In the Senate, it will take 60 votes to pass such a bill, and Democrats hold only 58 seats (well, 59 if you count Al Franken). So even if Democratic leaders get all of their own party members on board (and that's a long shot), they'll need to woo at least one Republican over to their side. Since McCain introduced cap-and-trade bills with Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) in 2003, 2005, and 2007, there had been speculation that he might be willing to work with Democrats on this issue. That looks less likely now.

After spending much of his speech bashing the Obama administration, McCain closed by telling the crowd, "It's time to put partisanship behind us."

Related Links:

For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

If debate in the Senate last week over some relatively non-controversial energy measures was any indication of things to come, we can expect fireworks over energy policy when legislators return from their two-week April recess.

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee took up the first four components of its pending energy package last week, focusing on job-training programs, efficiency standards for appliances, improvements to industrial efficiency, and protection of water resources. The four separate measures flew through the mark-up process with little discussion. But post-recess, the committee expects to take up more controversial elements of legislation -- including oil and gas drilling, nuclear power, coal technologies, grid upgrades, and financing for renewables.

Even the relatively calm session last week offered insight into how messy it could get. During discussion of the non-controversial amendments, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a long-time supporter of nuclear power, redirected the conversation to his concerns about the Obama administration's intention to cut off funding for the nuclear-waste repository at Yucca Mountain.

"I am an ardent proponent of nuclear power, but I believe that the administration has closed out the technology," McCain said. He pledged to offer amendments to the energy package to support the nuclear industry.

Idaho's freshman Sen. Jim Risch (R) echoed those concerns about nuclear power, as did Lisa Mukowski (R-Alaska) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.). Energy and Natural Resources Chair Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) cut off the discussion and assured his fellow committee members that they'll be given time to discuss nuclear power and Yucca Mountain at length in the near future.

During the same session, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) offered an amendment to an efficiency measure that would direct the Department of Energy to study the possibility of creating an "Energy Superstar" label to designate the most efficient appliances on the market. Currently the DOE gives appliances and office equipment the Energy Star label if they meet certain efficiency standards. Menendez said an "Energy Superstar" program could "encourage manufacturers to produce the best in their class."

But though the proposal only called for study of the idea, not actual implementation, it tipped off a flurry of debate.  Murkowski, the committee's ranking Republican, suggested that the new label might plunge the nation down a slippery slope of confusing efficiency labels. "Then do we have a Megastar?" she asked. Risch seemed to call for the end of the Energy Star program altogether. Menendez's amendment was approved, but the squabbling over it and other minor measures doesn't bode well for more complex energy negotiations.

Bingaman is taking the lead on the energy package in the Senate, which right now is looking like the most action we'll see from that chamber for a while on energy and environment. The House is moving forward on a comprehensive energy and climate plan, but the Senate is focusing on energy and leaving climate by the wayside for now.

Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Barbara Boxer, who last year shepherded a climate bill out of her committee, has even pitched the idea that the climate portion of a plan could just show up in an energy package after a conference between the House and Senate later this year. As we've noted before, the Senate will have a tough time passing a climate plan. Sixty votes will be needed to break filibuster, and Democrats hold just 58 seats (they might hold 59 if the fiasco in Minnesota is ever resolved). And among the Democrats, a number of moderates have serious reservations about regulating greenhouse-gas emissions.

The Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved all four components of the energy package debated last week:

Bingaman has been gradually rolling out the various elements of his energy package, and the more contentious portions are likely to come out in the weeks following recess. After mark-up in his committee, they'll move to a vote in the full Senate, where even more sparks can be expected.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow

Related Links:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Related Links:

For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

Home Economics of the JP Green House, Part 1

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Climate Hope: Inspiring 2009 Books for Clean Energy

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Climate Hope: Inspiring 2009 Books for Clean Energy

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Related Links:

On “climategate”

For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow

What to make of the new climate poll