Judging by emails and comments, many progressives and enviros seem to be under the misimpression that a much tougher climate bill was politically possible.  I myself was under that misimpression for a while.

Now, in fairness to myself (and others), one serious scenario does exist for a tougher climate bill being politically possible - but that involves a very hands-on Obama, which so far hasn't been his style for passing legislation (see "Obama can get a better climate bill in 2010").  Also, his advisors are almost certainly telling him to soft-pedal climate science - a serious mistake, since it essentially gives the deniers free reign to shape half of the debate.  I will blog on that shortly.

Outside the DC beltway, much of what goes on in this town is seen as some form of crass, enigmatic sausage making.  Well, as someone who has lived here for over 15 years, that's precisely what it is.  And it always bears repeating that given modern conservative ideology, which is 100% anti-conservation, "the country can only contemplate serious environmental legislation when we have the unique constellation of a Democratic president and [large] Democratic majorities in both houses, an occurrence far rarer than a total eclipse of the sun."

Even then, you must contend with the fact that a key part of this new Democratic majority is built upon votes from districts that are relatively moderate if not conservative, people who voted Democratic not so much because they endorse the progressive platform, but because they finally saw the ever-shrinking Republican Party for what it is - a rigidly-ideological movement hat has no solutions to offer for the many problems facing the country, problems that in fact stem from the few times the public mistakenly handed them the keys to the Hummer.

I would also add that in my one year as an American Physical Society Congressional science fellow advising a conservative Democrat from Florida in 1987-1988 - a pre-Gingrich time that was in theory much more conducive to bipartisanship - I never once saw a single member cast a vote purely for the national interest, except when that vote had no bearing whatsoever on their district.  And even then, every vote was still primarily a political calculation, and if their support wasn't needed for passage, members almost automatically asked for a pass on any vote that could conceivably get them in any trouble in their district.

So how did we actually get a majority to vote for the first major environmental bill in two decades, a bill that is easily demagogued against politically - see this misleading but brutal GOP ad already whipped up against one Dem -  but whose major environmental benefit is decades in the future?

The Politico explains in "Chaos, arm-twisting gave Pelosi win," excerpted below:

After lawmakers had devoured the last of the Kalua Pig at last Thursday night's White House Luau, Nancy Pelosi summoned her team back to the Capitol - to ensure the climate change bill wasn't the next thing roasted on the spit.

Pelosi and her top lieutenants would spend the next four hours whipping, cajoling, begging and browbeating undecided Democrats - and triple-checking their whip lists to decide who was a solid "yes" and who was prevaricating on the cap-and-trade legislation.

Yet no matter how many calls they made - or how many times they checked and rechecked their list - Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) kept coming up between 12 and 20 votes short of the 216 votes needed to win.

"We didn't have the votes - and we had to have this vote," said a leadership aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "This was the big one for us. [Pelosi] staked her prestige on this one. ... This was her flagship issue, and this was a flagship vote for us."

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 passed by only 219-212, after an epic day replete with Republican ambushes, petty betrayals, hastily rearranged flights and disappearing acts.

Yet for all the apparent chaos, the action was commanded by a House speaker maneuvering with the urgency of someone who knew her reputation was on the line.

Despite Republican promises to punish battleground state Democrats for supporting a "cap and tax" plan, Pelosi and her fractious caucus passed their most serious test to date.

And whatever the fallout, aides say that both Pelosi and President Barack Obama now know that their majority can hold together - barely - when placed under withering pressure - which may bode well for the equally arduous trials on health care reform.

At the end of it all, Pelosi, who floated in and out of the House cloakroom all day, impossible to miss in an arctic-white linen pantsuit, gambled big and pulled off one of the most important legislative victories of her career, a win she views as a personal vindication, according to those close to the San Francisco Democrat.

"There's no question about it," Clyburn said after the vote. "She went back to her whipping days of old. She is an incredibly good whip. I'm trying to learn from her every day."

Despite the most coordinated push yet between Democrats on the Hill and the Obama White House, the outcome was not certain until the very end, according to two dozen aides and members of Congress interviewed by POLITICO.

"It was really never a solid [216]," one person said afterward.

Party leaders agreed to bring the bill to the floor during a meeting Monday night, even though some of the members present had reservations about forcing vulnerable Democrats to cast votes on a package that may not go anywhere in the Senate.

In the days leading up the vote, the number of Democratic "yes" votes was locked at 200, according to people familiar with the tally. Every time they'd pick up one vote, another would slip. Democratic leaders needed a cushion to help protect the most vulnerable among them, and they didn't have it.

As the frustration grew, an aide joked in one meeting that White House staff should give fence-sitters the same colored leis so that the president and his Cabinet secretaries would know who to buttonhole. The desperation was such that others in the room paused for a split second to consider the joke before abandoning it as a logistical impossibility.

During the luau, Clyburn set up shop in the Oval Office with Obama to meet with wavering Democrats, like freshmen Reps. Frank Kratovil Jr. of Maryland and Eric Massa of New York. Members of Clyburn's whip team patrolled the White House lawn, cornering colleagues and making the case for the bill.

As the week wore on, Pelosi was directing former Vice President Al Gore whom to call, but everyone decided late Wednesday night that the list of undecided members was small enough that he should stay in Nashville, Tenn., to make calls.

On the day of the vote, the bleary-eyed tag team of Pelosi and Clyburn camped out in the cloakroom, just off the House floor, for nearly three hours.

One of Pelosi's first targets was Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), a key fence-sitter who wanted more money generated from the carbon trading to be directed to the research and development of green technology.

Pelosi talked to him again and again, but he wouldn't budge. Her message to him was the same as it was to others: It wasn't worth voting against the bill because of what wasn't in it.

According to witnesses, Pelosi perched herself on the arm of Holt's chair and went nose to nose with him for a half-hour warning him that his no vote could scuttle the entire climate change effort - and that liberals would have another chance to make their case once the bill came back from the Senate.

Around 2 o'clock, he became a "yes."

Next up was Austin, Texas, liberal Rep. Lloyd Doggett, who had seemed to be leaning toward the bill during a Thursday night visit with Obama in the Oval Office - but then infuriated the White House midday Friday by declaring the measure too weak on polluters to win his vote.

An exasperated White House staffer told POLITICO it was "stunning that he would ignore the wishes not just of his president but of his constituents and the country."

Then Pelosi began working Doggett as the two stood in the back of the chamber near the railing, making the same perfect-is-enemy-of-the-good argument she had used against Holt. Doggett ended up voting "yes."During the vote, Washington Rep. Jay Inslee, one of the taller members of the House, guarded the doors on the floor leading out to the Speaker's Lobby, warning members not to leave the floor in case anyone needed to switch his or her vote. But that didn't stop some Democrats, like Colorado Rep. John Salazar, from voting no early and sneaking out to avoid getting pressured by party leaders.

Leadership aides say Texas Rep. Ciro Rodriguez promised Pelosi he'd vote yes, but voted no and sprinted from the chamber. California Rep. Xavier Becerra tried unsuccessfully to flag him on his cell phone - and Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) bounded into the ornate Speaker's Lobby off the floor shouting, "Rodriguez! Rodriguez!" as puzzled reporters looked on.

Pelosi forced members to postpone their trips abroad to stay in town for the vote, aides familiar with the situation said. At one point, she even promised to escort one member out to the airport in her motorcade to catch an early flight - as House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) stalled the proceedings with an hourlong reading from the 300-page manager's amendment.

California Rep. Ellen Tauscher, a master of floor procedure who left the House on Friday to take a top job at the State Department, may have made the biggest personal sacrifice by postponing a dinner the night before her wedding to preside over the debate - her last as a member of Congress.

When another Californian, Rep. Joe Baca, declared himself undeclared, Pelosi and her whip team surrounded him - and burst out into applause when he cast one of the decisive "yes" votes, according to an eyewitness.

Members who wanted to be spared of the Pelosi treatment - slinked in and out of the chamber hoping the speaker wouldn't notice them.

Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.) - another progressive who didn't think the bill was strong enough - was an especially elusive target, according to leadership aides. Pelosi's attempts to contact Filner early Friday weren't successful, staffers say, but she began lobbying him furiously when he showed up for a series of procedural votes leading up to the fateful climate change measure.

After Baca and others had cast their "yeas," the speaker walked up to Filner and calmly said, "It's now your time to be on the record, Mr. Filner," according to a witness.

He voted yes.

That's how it's done.

Related Links:

George Voinovich (R-Ohio) [UPDATED]

Al Franken (D-Minn.)

Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)

In the weeks since the House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, it's become clear that the bill was approved only because of some serious arm-twisting by Democratic leaders. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) personally badgered wavering Democrats, even going so far as to pull one representative out of rehab so he could vote for the bill. Even with serious coercion from leadership, the House bill scraped by, with a vote of 219 to 212.

It doesn't look likely that we'll see the same hard-nosed approach in the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has been downplaying the majority's ability to push through their agenda and even admitting that he's "not very good at twisting arms." The two leaders' approaches are a world apart.

Let's look at Pelosi first. The Hill has a fantastic account of just how serious Pelosi was about getting the bill passed:

And here's Politico's account of how Pelosi targeted New Jersey Rep. Rush Holt:

Reid seems far less willing than his House counterpart to play hardball to get a climate and energy bill passed.  Here he is in The New York Times discussing the Democrats' 60-vote supermajority and why it won't guarantee that the Dems' agenda passes this year:

And this, from a recent Congressional Quarterly profile:

Senate leaders have postponed debate of a climate bill until September, in order to buy more time to persuade apprehensive Democrats. But when the bill comes up, will Reid actually crack the whip?

Related Links:

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

Are there 218 votes in the House of Representatives for clean energy and a healthier climate?

Rep. Mike Doyle is one of nine lawmakers "whipping" up votes for the Waxman-Markey bill. Above, Doyle at a June 24 rally on Capitol Hill.Kate Sheppard / GristWith a vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act expected on Friday or Saturday, supporters on Capitol Hill and in the environmental community are trying to determine if there are enough votes to pass it.

Democrats currently hold 254 seats, though it's hard to get a firm count on how many of them are definite "yes" votes and whether there will be any Republicans who break ranks on this issue.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that she expects the House will vote on the bill this week ... and she said it won't proceed to a final vote until the Democratic leadership is certain they have the votes to pass it. "We are working hard to bring it to the floor this week," she said.

As for whether they have those votes, Pelosi said, "You never know until you take the vote, but we are making progress and I'm very pleased." The Speaker also canceled a visit from former vice president Al Gore to talk to undecided legislators, saying that his presence was no longer needed. "We had a great narrowing of the undecideds yesterday," she said.

Pelosi has assembled a team of nine "whips" for this legislation -- House members who will meet with undecideds and try to convince them to move into the "yes" column. As of yesterday, the whips expressed optimism that the votes will be there.

"It's tough sometimes to get to a hard 'yes' on an issue like this," Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.), a member of the whip team. Doyle, a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, was a key broker on the bill's industrial and manufacturing components.

"I don't know that we'll get to the point where you say we have 218 hard yeses," he continued. "But I think we're so close now, and there's so many undecideds leaning 'yes,' that there's a sense once you put it on the floor, they're going to vote with us."

"I don't think anyone is willing to declare overwhelming victory yet, but there is a sense in the caucus that this thing is moving in the direction of passage," he said. "I think the leadership feels good enough about it that they're willing to put it on the floor."

Get involved in the fight against climate change.

In addition to Doyle, the whips include Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Energy and Commerce Committee members Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), and Rick Boucher (D-Va.), and the bill's authors, Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).

Co-author Markey voiced similar optimism about the bill's fate, and said supporters are being helped by the White House. Obama's top climate and energy adviser, Carol Browner, has reportedly been making calls to House members, as has Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Obama himself made a public address in the Rose Garden on Thursday calling on the undecided members to support the bill.

"The White House is making it very clear that they want this bill to pass this week," said Markey. "We are very confident that with the help of the White House and Speaker Pelosi that we will be able to move the legislation this week."

Many undecided Democrats from farm states are expected to back the bill after Waxman and Markey reached a deal with Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) on Tuesday. But that's not to say everyone is on board. There are a handful of Democrats displaying outright opposition to the bill, including Mike Ross (Ark.), who was one of only four Democrats to vote against it in committee. Ross issued a press release on Wednesday referring to the House bill as an "energy tax" and touting an alternative bill, the American-Made Energy Act of 2009, that he released this week.

On the left, two liberal Democrats -- Pete DeFazio (Ore.) and Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) -- may oppose the bill. DeFazio has argued that cap-and-trade is not an ideal policy for addressing climate change, while Kucinich has argued that the bill is too weak.

Estimates of Democrats still sitting on the fence run as high as 49. The undecideds include many Midwestern and Southern Democrats, freshman and sophomore members, and a small group of moderate Republicans. Pelosi herself has met with a number of those swing votes, and they are the key targets of her whip team.

See our list of swing votes on the next page ... >>>

Below is Grist's best guess on who the undecided representatives are at this point, as well as the lawmakers who look likely to break partisan ranks. If you see or hear anything from these members that might indicate otherwise, please let us know and we will amend.

Likely fence-sitters -- Democrats:

Neil Abercrombie (Hawaii)
Marion Berry (Ark.) Sanford Bishop (Ga.)
John Boccieri (Ohio)
Dan Boren (Okla.)
Allen Boyd (Fla.)
Christopher Carney (Pa.)
Ben Chandler (Ky.)
Travis Childers (Miss.)
Lacy Clay (Mo.)
Kathy Dahlkemper (Pa.)
Lincoln Davis (Tenn.)
Pete DeFazio (Ore.)
Joe Donnelly (Ind.)
Steve Driehaus (Ohio)
Chet Edwards (Texas)
Brad Ellsworth (Ind.)
Bill Foster (Ill.)
Parker Griffith (Ala.)
Debbie Halvorson (Ill.)
Rubén Hinojosa (Texas)
Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas)
Steve Kagen (Wis.)
Paul Kanjorski (Pa.)
Marcy Kaptur (Ohio)
Mary Jo Kilroy (Ohio)
Ron Kind (Wis.)
Larry Kissell (N.C.)
Frank Kratovil (Md.)
Dennis Kucinich (Ohio)
Jim Marshall (Ga.)
Mike McIntyre (N.C.)
Walt Minnick (Idaho)
Alan Mollohan (W.Va.)
Dennis Moore (Kan.)
John Murtha (Pa.)
Glenn Nye (Va.)
Solomon Ortiz (Texas)
Tom Perriello (Va.)
Gary Peters (Mich.)
Mark Schauer (Mich.)
David Scott (Ga.)
Heath Shuler (N.C.)
Ike Skelton (Mo.)
Vic Snyder (Ark.)
John Tanner (Tenn.)
Harry Teague (N.M.)
Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.)
Tim Walz (Minn.)

Likely Democratic "no" votes:

Jason Altmire (Pa.)
John Barrow (Ga.)
Bobby Bright (Ala.)
Artur Davis (Ala.)
Tim Holden (Pa.) Jim Matheson (Utah)
Charlie Melancon (La.)
Earl Pomeroy (N.D)
Mike Ross (Ark.)
Gene Taylor (Miss.)
Charles Wilson (Ohio)

Likely Republican "yes" votes:

Mary Bono Mack (Calif.)

Potential Republican supporters:

Mike Castle (Del.)
Roscoe Bartlett (Md.)
Vernon Ehlers (Mich.)
Mark Kirk (Ill.)
Leonard Lance (N.J.)
Frank LoBiondo (N.J.)
Thomas Petri (Wis.)
Dave Reichert (Wash.)
Chris Smith (N.J.)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.)

Related Links:

What to make of the new climate poll

Bill McKibben says time is running out on climate delays

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

"We will have a bill," the California Democrat said in a brief interview today after her weekly press conference.

So Greenwire (subs. req'd) reports this afternoon, for those who had any remaining doubts about whether the Waxman-Markey clean energy and climate bill would pass the House (see also Boucher predicts "I think we'll do far better than" the 218 votes needed to pass Waxman-Markey, GOP's Walden agrees passage likely).

House Democrats are expected to close ranks within days on a major energy-and-climate proposal, leading to floor debate and final passage before the July 4th recess, according to key lawmakers and sources tracking the debate.

Behind-the-scenes talks on the comprehensive bill have left only a few critical sticking points, but those issues are expected to be resolved soon as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi weighs in on an issue at the top of her legislative agenda.

What about the push-back from the aggies that seems to be flooding the media in the last couple of day?

The biggest sticking point to date in the climate debate centers on farm-state Democrats. House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson of Minnesota said he spoke about his concerns by phone yesterday with Pelosi."She wants to get involved in these issues and see if there's a way to resolve them," Peterson said today.

The Peterson added that he is planning to meet later today with Pelosi, Waxman and Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee.

"We'll see if we can come to a meeting of the minds about what's practical," Peterson said....

Waxman added that he will be addressing lawmakers' concerns with changes to his underlying legislation.

"I think we'll have a manager's amendment that will make a lot of improvements to the bill, that'll reflect some changes that we think are appropriate," Waxman said....

Peterson today will chair a hearing on the climate bill that includes testimony from Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who is expected to push for passage of the legislation. Waxman also goes before the 69-member New Democrat Coalition, which includes Reps. Jake Crowley of New York, John Barrow of Georgia and Jay Inslee of Washington....

And one former Democratic leadership aide said today that the Pelosi-led negotiations are expected to accelerate once Peterson finishes his hearing today.

"I think everything pulls together very quickly after tomorrow," the former House staffer said. "My guess is it moves quickly."

While Waxman and other House Dems are still saying this will get to the floor the week of June 22, Pelosi is making no promises:

Earlier, Pelosi sidestepped questions about the timing of a floor debate starting the week of June 22.

"We will bring the bill to the floor when they are ready, whether it's health care or whether it's energy, when they are ready," Pelosi said, citing work in eight other panels beyond the Energy and Commerce Committee. "That's the process we're involved in, and when we're finished and when we're ready, we'll go to the floor."

And Republicans seem to agree the House will pass the bill:

Several House Republicans, including Reps. Fred Upton of Michigan and Greg Walden of Oregon, said yesterday that they expect Democrats will be able to pass their climate bill, even with minimal GOP support.

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving

Fourteen Democratic senators stick up for coal

Twenty major environmental groups sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a letter (here) urging that she make three key improvements in the Waxman-Markey bill and reject attempts to weaken it.

The groups, which include the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation, the National Audubon Society, Environment America, the League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resource Defense Council, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, want to

Strengthen renewable electricity provisions to achieve 20 percent of sales generated from clean renewable energy by 2020, including the flexibility to achieve another 3 percent that could come from either efficiency or renewables by 2020. Increase the energy efficiency requirement so that utilities achieve 10% energy efficiency by 2020.  Strengthening these standards will generate hundreds of thousands of new clean energy jobs.

Can't argue with any of those improvements (with caveat on CAA below).

If I had to pick one to fight for, it would be strengthening the energy efficiency standards.  Given how lame the renewable standards are in the Senate bill and given how big a push Obama and Congress have given to renewables in the stimulus - see "EIA projects wind at 5% of U.S. electricity in 2012, all renewables at 14%, thanks to Obama stimulus!" - (and are planning to give in various pieces of legislation, including Waxman-Markey), I have doubts that the final bill will substantially increase renewable energy beyond business as usual.

But energy efficiency is the clean energy strategy that

CLEAN AIR ACT

I know many enviros want to preserve the CAA authority, but I do not believe that the Obama EPA was realistically going to use the CAA to "require existing power plants, refineries and other sources to meet up-to-date carbon pollution standards."  Using the CAA to regulate existing power plants would take many years, require waiting for the states to demonstrably fail to take action, involve multiple lawsuits, and could easily be overturned by a subsequent administration.

Obama would, I think, have used the CAA authority to regulate new sources.  Since he has already announced the most aggressive action on new vehicle greenhouse gas emissions (see "Obama to raise new car fuel efficiency standard to 39 mpg by 2016 - The biggest step the U.S. government has ever taken to cut CO2"), that mainly leaves new coal plants.  I'm not sure if Obama would have block every new dirty coal plant with the CAA, but he certainly would have blocked a great many of them.  But I think W-M is going to block as many as Obama would have, so I'm not certain it preserving this authority is worth a humongous political fight.

If you're going to expend a lot of political capital, you should do so for something you can win and which would have a big impact.  That I think is most true of strengthening the efficiency standard, though it may well be possible to get some more allowances for clean energy and that is worth pushing for.

The other change I would certainly fight for, as I've discussed, is to sunset the offsets provision.

Finally, I agree 100% with the green groups when they write:

Unfortunately, some members of Congress and special interests have said they would like to roll back the already weakened target for reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 2020. We urge you to reject any effort to weaken these targets. We also urge you to preserve the provision ensuring that the latest science informs the policy and strengthen the policy response to that science.

Our top priority is to enact legislation that jump-starts a clean energy economy, creates millions of clean energy jobs and reduces global warming pollution while giving the U.S. credibility to lead international negotiations on climate change. By strengthening and passing the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the House of Representatives can take a critical step towards accomplishing that goal.

Related Links:

Fourteen Democratic senators stick up for coal

House passes landmark health-care bill with one GOP vote

N.Y. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand answers Grist’s questions on the Kerry-Boxer bill

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has set a soft deadline of June 19 for committee leaders to finish their review of the climate and energy bill that passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee last month. But she hasn't set a deadline for passing the bill out the full chamber.

Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Pelosi said passing the bill is "urgent" and affirmed that "we want to go forward as soon as possible," but stopped short of imposing a deadline.  She also said that the June 19 date for committee work to be done is not hard and fast; legislators could get an extension "if they are making progress and they need more time."

She has, however, set a concrete goal for passing health-care legislation. "By the end of July ... for sure, we will pass the health-care bill in the House of Representatives. That's our commitment to the president."

The big climate and energy package is not getting the same firm deadline. "We'll bring the bill to the floor when the bill is ready, and not one day sooner," said Pelosi.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Here’s how to fix the climate: Take trips that are quite fancy.
In the mood for Chinese? Bag Beijing with John and Nancy.
Hit London, why don’t Chu, or give a crepe with Todd.
Just don’t think of your carbon trail, and make your peace with ... dog.

A wing and a player.beigeinside via flickr

Related Links:

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Enlightenment thinking

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Okay, I don’t know if it is a scoop, heck, I don’t know for certain it is true, but a very reliable source tells me that speaker Pelosi wants the climate bill on the House floor the last week in June.

That is consistent with what Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said (see “House Majority Leader says climate bill will see fast action“).  But it will require a lot of speedy deal-making.  Still, it suggests the speaker does not see any deal breakers in the path to House passage, even though, as Wonk Room reports, “Brown Dogs Poised To Block Green Economy Legislation.”

And Sen. Boxer (D-CA) can certainly get something close to the Waxman-Markey bill out of the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee by the fall.  And let’s assume for now it doesn’t get mired in any other committees

And that brings me to the climate politics question of the week:

Will moderate and conservative Senate Democrats — the Gang of 16 — vote for something that is called the Boxer-Waxman-Markey Bill?  Or will they embarce a not-invented-here mentality and insist on substantially weakening it?

After all, at least one of them is already hard at work trying to gut an already weak Senate Renewable Energy Standard, which itself is weaker than the Waxman-Markey RES.  As Wonk Room explained last week, “Evan Bayh votes against a national renewable electricity standard that even Republicans supported“:

Bayh said Indiana would be among the states that would bear a disproportionate share of the cost of meeting the requirement. He said a fairer system would be offering tax credits for producing power from renewable sources.

The standard of 15 percent renewable energy or efficiency gains by 2021 is significantly weaker than President Obama’s preferred standard of 25 percent by 2025. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) joined 11 Democrats in support of the standard, and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) did not vote.

All you Hoosiers out there need to let your Senator know what you think with letters and phone calls.  He is going to be a hard sell — and one more reason why we need some sort of the deal with China this fall (see Bayh’s exchange with Energy Secretary Chu in “Does a serious bill need action from China?“)

Related Links:

Fourteen Democratic senators stick up for coal

House passes landmark health-care bill with one GOP vote

When will we stop paying the hidden fossil fuel tax?

The Climate Post is a weekly roundup of climate news, produced by the The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University.

-----

The word "Copenhagen" hangs over climate discussions everywhere from Washington to Wagga Wagga. That’s because in December the world travels to the Danish capital for the 15th Conference of Parties meeting, affectionately referred to as COP15. There, nations large and small hope to reach a new international agreement that would ratchet down global emissions beginning after 2012.

Expectations for a conclusive deal have diminished over the last several months. But negotiations of every stripe continue, and will accelerate through the summer and fall. This week saw nations, businesses, and advocacy groups ramp up activity.

Todd Stern, the U.S. Special Envoy on Climate Change, traveled to Paris, where he met with representatives from 15 other major economies and the European Union. Together these nations contribute more than 80 percent of industrial CO2 emissions. European officials pressed the U.S. for a stronger emissions reduction program than the one outlined in current climate legislation. Europe’s own goals are tied to the rest of the world. Leaders there have committed by 2020 to a 20 percent reduction in their emissions, below 1990 levels. If negotiators produce a new agreement in Copenhagen, the E.U. has vowed to raise that target to 30 percent.

Stern told his counterparts that pollution reductions below targets in the current House of Representatives climate bill are politically unfeasible: "We are jumping as high as the political system will tolerate."

Sino the Times: A more promising note rang from Beijing, where the government has issued draft car fuel economy standards tougher than those President Barack Obama announced last week, according to the New York Times. Chinese cars currently average about 35.8 miles per gallon and would be required to reach 42.2 mpg in 2015 (Obama’s new standard is 35.5 mpg by 2016). Chinese officials have yet to address a loophole large enough to drive a Hummer through: Standards apply only to cars produced in China — not imports.

In Beijing, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told Chinese leaders that the "climate crisis is game-changing for the U.S.-China relationship." Pelosi visited Beijing days after the Chinese government issued its formal negotiating stance for Copenhagen, which asks major emitters to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 40 percent by 2020. It’s hard to come up with a precise analogy for how difficult such a target would be. But certainly Americans could meet it easily by, uh, eliminating all household and commercial refrigeration.

Fortunately, striking a deal might ultimately cost much less than our entire national store of popsicles, ice cream, and frozen vegetables. Reuters interviews Gao Guangsheng, a top official in the National Coordination Committee for Climate Change, who acknowledges flexibility in the Chinese position. "I think Copenhagen may not be the final negotiation. It may set policy intentions so that we can keep negotiating," he said.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who also went to China, put a finer point on current negotiations between the world’s two largest emitters: "Copenhagen will be defined by what the U.S. and China agree on in the next few weeks."

Other nations admit little or no such sunlight between their formal and informal negotiating positions. India has said it will look to the developed world for definitive leadership before considering a rigorous climate policy. ClimateWire explores the task facing climate advocates in India tilting at this particular windmill. "The Indian government’s agenda will not change until Indians want it to change," Malini Mehra, the founder of the Indian nonprofit Centre for Social Markets told U.N. Foundation audience in Washington, DC.

Climate glasnost?: Even intransigent national positions on climate change can change abruptly and dramatically, as they did after the 2008 U.S. election. They can also do so without warning.

Russia surprised the climate world by finally acknowledging the potentially catastrophic threats of manmade warming, Nature reports. The magnitude of this change might not be immediately apparent. Imagine that Senator James Inhofe (R-Ok.) jettisoned his longstanding ridicule of basic science and climate policy, and adopted a position as rigorous as that of Rep. Henry Waxman, the powerful House committee chairman and lead author of that chamber’s current climate bill. That’s what happened when the natural resources minister briefed the Russian Cabinet in April. Officials calculated that the economy already takes nearly a $2 billion hit every year, because of climate-related flooding, droughts, and storms.

This thaw in climate politics amounts to a major political shift in Russian attitudes. And its intended result is to prevent actual thaw that would amount to a climate shift in Russian latitudes. Edward Schuur of the University of Florida and colleagues write in Nature that warmer temperatures unleash soil carbon stored for many thousands of years in permafrost. Over the next few decades, carbon release from tundra could "overwhelm" the amount that plants use to grow, creating another accelerator for warming.

"If it isn’t boring, it isn’t green": Stern and Pelosi are not the U.S.’s only world travelers this week. Some 500 business leaders convened in the state of Denmark itself, calling on nations to halve their greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, a target much lower than the 80 percent or so advocated by Obama and congressional allies.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu told a London audience that whitewashing the world’s roofs would reflect enough solar energy back into space to match emissions reductions from taking 11 million cars off the road. This is worth keeping in mind in coming weeks and months as Congress considers climate legislation (Legislators have the week off for Memorial Day). Little things, aggregated globally, mean a lot.

"Cap and trade" or no "cap and trade," the White House and Capitol are unlikely to ever change how they address global warming. That’s because both buildings reflect about 240 watts per square meter of solar energy right back up into the sky. (It’s the same principle behind parental encouragement to wear light shirts on sunny summer days. White and light colors reflect energy; black and dark colors absorb it.)

That’s just one approach. These buildings’ whiteness comes from heavy, hydrocarbon paints, which given the size of the buildings probably store several tons of carbon. The buildings themselves keep many tons of carbon out of the atmosphere. The Capitol Rotunda alone, made of Triassic and Cretaceous period sandstone, keeps carbon locked away in rock.

Climate Post is, of course, kidding in pointing out these relatively paltry stores of carbon. But maybe as elected officials and policymakers consider paths forward, they’ll take a moment to meditate on or marvel at the bigger picture — the much bigger picture — of the history they are making (either way), the common U.S. history that led them to this episode, its role in the community of nations, and the community of nations’ current, consequential role in the history of the Earth’s climate and life. How "cool" is that?

Related Links:

A Global Climate Agreement: China, India, United States Make Commitments to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.XinhuaHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi is in China this week leading a congressional delegation to discuss, among other things, climate change and environmental protections. But despite the public displays of unity on climate, there remain some strong divisions between the two countries on what needs to happen in Copenhagen this year.

Traveling with Pelosi are James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), Ed Markey (D- Mass.), Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), Jay Inslee, (D-Wash.), and Jackie Speier (D-Calif.). The five representatives met yesterday with three top leaders of the Chinese government, including President Hu Jintao, Premier Wen Jiabao, and Wu Bangguo, the Chairman of the National People's Congress. 
They also held a two-hour meeting with the Chinese National People's Congress' Environmental Protection and Resources Conservation Committee.

The statement the U.S. delegation put out on the meeting didn't offer much insight into the conversation. According to a remarkably bland quote from Pelosi, "both sides agreed to work together to confront the urgent challenge we face." At a meeting of the U.S.-China Clean Energy Forum, Pelosi made similiarly optimistic, though vauge, remarks. "I think this climate crisis is game changing for the U.S.-China relationship," she said. "It is an opportunity we cannot miss."

There was an equally uninformative statement from Premier Wen, via the Chinese news service Xinhua: "China will cement policy dialogue with the United States, take the joint tackling of climate change as an important aspect of cooperation and push for positive results in the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference."

Markey, chair of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, seems to still be flying high on the passage of his climate and energy bill out of the Energy and Commerce Committee last week. He's surely ecstatic to have some real news to take with him to China this week, and seemed to have a more enthusiastic take on their meetings.

"Our meetings this week reinforced the urgent need for the United States and China to take concrete actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to help preserve our planet," said Markey in a statement after the meeting.

But the enthusiasm in public displays doesn't really reflect the continued difficulty in getting these two nations, the largest consumers of energy in the world, on the same page when it comes to climate policy. While the climate bill that Markey co-sponsored with Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) would be a first step for the United States in curbing emissions, it is not as strong as Chinese leaders have indicated they would like to see.

Chinese leaders have indicated that they think developed nations should reduce their emissions 40 percent below 1995 levels by 2020. The bill the Energy and Commerce Committee approved only seeks a 2020 target of 17 percent below 2005 levels.

The Center for American Progress issued a new report on Wednesday detailing this weakness in the Waxman-Markey bill when it comes to bringing China along in climate treaty negotiations (which Grist reprinted here). From their report:

But as the authors point out, despite differing expectations on midterm targets, other provisions in the House bill like the renewable electricity and efficiency standards can allow the United States to reach those goals. The challenge is convincing China that despite the apparent gap between their expectations and the Waxman-Markey bill, they can find common ground and reach an agreement in Copenhagen.

This reality makes one wonder what's really going down in Pelosi's meetings in China this week. All the nicey-nice talk doesn't do justice to the tough conversations leaders are – or at least, should – be having.

Related Links:

A Global Climate Agreement: China, India, United States Make Commitments to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

"They need not fear what I would write as a bill, [that I would] say, 'Let's write a bill without coal.' You can't."

-- Nancy Pelosi

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

"We are building our consensus, and when we are ready, we will bring it to the floor. I have never been driven by a Senate timetable or what they are willing to pass. We set our own pace and our own standard here, but respectful of what we can get done, working together with the Senate."

-- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), responding to a question about the House climate bill and what she expects from the Senate

Related Links:

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

George Voinovich (R-Ohio) [UPDATED]

As Kate reported, Reps. Waxman and Markey have released a discussion draft of their American Clean Energy and Security (ACES, heh) Act. You can read Kate's post for details, the full 600-page(!) text if you've got the nerve, or a summary. As far as I can tell, this didn't get much media, which is peculiar, since it represents the starting gun on one of the Democrats' three top priorities under Obama's leadership. If this thing gets passed it will be an epochal change in U.S. policy.

One of the striking features -- and perhaps the most consequential legislative decision Dems will make this year on energy/climate -- is that it lumps everything together in a single bill. I know some folks aren't big on this strategy, and I've been on the fence myself, but I've pretty much come to see it as both smart and inevitable.

Consider the context. There are several important steps that need to be taken on climate and energy, and the Dems have promised to get them done this year. If nothing else, the U.S. needs something to take to the Copenhagen climate talks, coming up in December. That puts serious time pressure on the whole undertaking.

Waxman, chair of the House Energy and Commerce committee, is also a key power broker on healthcare, which will also be coming to a vote this year, so it's not like he has unlimited time and attention. (Though of course he has a capable deputy in Markey.)

Plus I hear there's an economic meltdown and possible bank collapse going on.

How, with sharply circumscribed time, attention, and political capital, could Dems get all these policies passed?

It's important to note that the cap-and-trade part of the package is by far the least popular and easiest to demagogue. So conventional wisdom has been that Dems should lead with the more popular energy and grid stuff. But those aren't a cakewalk either -- there's plenty of regional opposition to renewable energy standards and a whole set of jurisdictional and local battles around the grid.

The fact is, doing these pieces separately would mean three, four, possibly five bruising legislative battles, culminating in a battle over cap-and-trade that, in my estimation, simply can't be won on its own in this Senate. No one in D.C. has the appetite for that, not this year.

So they've decided, uncharacteristically for Democrats, to double down. They are piling all this stuff into one big-ticket, high-profile, must-pass bill. Just as there will be "a healthcare bill" -- and not four disparate, complicated healthcare bills only wonks can understand -- there will now be a green economy bill. For it or against it.

Will that strategy coalesce support or coalesce opposition? Hard to say. At the very least, opposing this bill, as a Democrat, will be riskier than opposing isolated pieces of it. And there will be no avoiding the decision. Pelosi made it very clear in a conference call with green bloggers that this is not negotiable. (As you would know if you were following my Twitter feed!) "There's an inevitability to this that everyone has to understand," she said.

There is now a single point of focus, a put-up-or-shut-up moment. Anyone who wants to transition to a green economy or get the country off foreign oil or prevent global warming knows what to get behind. If nothing else, there will be no doubt by next year whether we're serious about this sh*t.

(More on the Waxman/Markey bill in coming days.)

Related Links:

What to make of the new climate poll

Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets

Is there a tradeoff between economics and the environment?

House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders released the much-anticipated draft of their climate and energy legislation on Tuesday, a proposal that includes emissions goals more ambitious than those proposed by the Obama White House but also leaves open many of the most contentious questions on climate policy.

Sponsors Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) are calling the 648-page draft bill the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. It calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, 42 percent by 2030, and 83 percent by 2050. The Obama team has put forward a goal of 14 percent cuts by 2020 and 80 percent cuts by mid-century, making the House bill slightly more aggressive.

"This legislation will create millions of clean energy jobs, put America on the path to energy independence, and cut global warming pollution." said Waxman, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, in a statement on Tuesday. "Our goal is to strengthen our economy by making America the world leader in new clean energy and energy efficiency technologies."

In a call with reporters today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reaffirmed her commitment to getting a climate bill passed in the House by July, though she also acknowledged that it will be a tough process. The bill, she said, might not get much, if any, Republican support.

"We would hope to have Republican votes as we go forward on this," said Pelosi. "Will I not put it forth unless I do? No. There's an inevitability to this that everyone has to understand."

The bill unveiled by Waxman and Markey would create a cap-and-trade system for carbon dioxide that covers any entity emitting more than 25,000 tons of CO2 per year. The draft language doesn't include specifics on what percentage of those credits would be allocated to polluters each year at no cost, or how many they'd need to purchase. It also doesn't specify how the proceeds of an auction would be spent.

Markey told reporters that the plan would most likely include some free allocations of credits, at least in the initial period, and some auctioning. Revenues from carbon auctions would likely be used for consumer rebates and energy investments, he said, but the bill's authors are leaving the specifics up to committee members.

"That will be determined in our conversations with the members of the committee, and with all other parties who are interested in the issue," said Markey. "We are firm in our commitment to resolving the issue, but we want to hear from all affected parties."

The bill currently includes a section drawn from a proposal from Reps. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) that would set aside a certain number of allowances for energy-intensive industrial sectors like steel, aluminum, iron, paper, cement, glass, and chemicals and paper, directing the EPA to determine the amount.

The draft also includes several provisions to control the price of carbon credits -- leaving a "strategic reserve" of allowances that the EPA could release onto the market if prices rise too quickly, and allowing polluters to "bank and borrow" an unlimited number of credits for future use if they exceed their emissions goals in a given year. It also allows up to 2 billion tons of carbon emission reductions to be met by offsets, which it would split evenly between domestic and international offsets.

Markey acknowledged that the bill largely mirrors the blueprint for climate action put out in January by the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of business and environmental groups. USCAP members includes corporations like Duke Energy and Dow Chemical, and environmental groups like the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The Details

The draft includes a number of renewable energy and efficiency provisions. It calls for a renewable electricity standard of 6 percent starting in 2012, scaling up to 25 percent by 2025. It also would create new energy efficiency programs for appliances, support for home energy retrofits, measures to improve building codes, and calls for efforts to improve the efficiency of industrial processes. It also includes measures to spur the use of plug-in electric vehicles.

There's also a significant electricity transmission component, including efforts to deploy "smart grid" technologies and expanding the capacity to transmit renewable energy. It also directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to craft new grid planning principles.

The bill includes new emissions standards for new heavy vehicles and engines and measures to limit the carbon content of fuels used for motor vehicles, and it would direct the EPA to set emissions standards for airplanes.

The bill would also put in place new emissions standards for coal-fired power plants that come on-line between 2009 and 2015. New plants permitted after Jan. 1, 2015, would need to emit less than 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of output, and the standards ramp up again for plants approved after 2020. The bill also includes efforts to accelerate progress on carbon-capture-and-sequestration, adopted from a measure put forward by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), the House's leading proponent of the technology.

Reactions

Green groups were quick to issue statements praising the draft bill.

"The Waxman-Markey draft bill is a strong start and is testament to their decades of leadership on clean energy and other environmental issues," said Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope. "We look forward to working with them and other members of the Energy & Commerce Committee in order to flesh out the remaining details and move the strongest possible bill to the House floor ... This bill combines the right mix of policies and the long-term vision necessary to build the green economy that will pull us out of the current economic crisis."

Alliance for Climate Protection CEO Maggie Fox echoed that praise. "Now more than ever, we need a climate and energy policy that moves us past the dirty fuels of the past, embraces strong, science-based targets and quickly reduces emissions of carbon pollution," said Fox. "We should take advantage of our opportunity this year to transform our economy, create jobs in communities across America and lay the foundation for broad international action on the climate crisis."

USCAP said the draft bill "provides a solid foundation to create a climate strategy that both protects our economy and achieves the nation's environmental goals."

The aggressive schedule for debating the bill drew skepticism from some in the energy sector. "The timeframe for consideration of the legislation will be difficult to meet," said Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council. "Given the scope and cost of the bill, we hope it will receive a thorough vetting before being passed along for floor consideration. The bill is in need of a range of legislative hearings and full and open mark-ups."

The folks over at the Competitive Enterprise Institute issued their obligatory statement condemning the idea of cap-and-trade and calling for the bill's swift defeat. "We will work to see that it dies as quickly as possible," said CEI Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy Myron Ebell. "Waxman and Markey blithely set targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions without any serious analysis or even awareness of the colossal costs of energy rationing to American consumers, workers, and industry."

The Senate's resident climate change skeptic, James Inhofe (R-Okla.), claimed that the bill does nothing to address climate change, which mind you, he doesn't believe in. "It appears that this legislation is yet another version of the same story: a job-killing tax increase on American consumers that jeopardizes America's energy security, while doing nothing to address climate change. In short, it's all economic pain for no climate gain," said Inhofe in a statement.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who tried to get the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act through the Senate last year, said she is "very encouraged" by the House bill. "It is a giant leap forward and I am very excited about it," said Boxer.

Debate on the bill is expected to begin following the April recess.

Related Links:

A Global Climate Agreement: China, India, United States Make Commitments to Seal Copenhagen Deal

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

Congressional leaders want to combine energy and climate provisions into one big bill this year, rather than moving a few smaller bills on the issues.

But while some on Capitol Hill are cheering this as a way to expedite the process, others are skeptical about the chances of passing one giant bill in 2009, and worry that the strategy might slow progress on clean-energy measures that would be an easier sell without a controversial climate program.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said on March 3 that she wants "an energy bill that goes farther" and includes a greenhouse-gas cap-and-trade program and improvements to the electricity grid. "I think having it as one bill shows the integrity, the oneness of it all, how it all relates to each other," she said.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) initially announced that he intended to move three separate pieces of legislation -- one on renewables and efficiency, one on electricity transmission, and one to cap greenhouse-gas emissions. But on March 5 he changed his tune, signaling that he will look to move a single package that includes all three measures. He estimated that the bill will be ready to go by the end of the summer.

The Obama administration, meanwhile, is laying the groundwork for regulating greenhouse gases, which ups the pressure on Congress to pass climate legislation this year rather than let the executive branch take the lead.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is working with ranking committee member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) on an energy bill that's likely to include his renewable electricity standard (RES) proposal and efficiency measures. Though an RES bill that Bingaman proposed in 2007 failed, he seems confident that his new measure will win approval this year.

Senate leaders are also optimistic that they can pass legislation to upgrade the electricity grid and make it easier to transmit power -- particularly renewably produced power -- around the country to where it's needed. Reid is sponsoring a bill that would give the federal government greater authority in siting electrical transmission lines, and Bingaman is also sponsoring a transmission measure. (Reid's has met with some early resistance.)

But Bingaman, whose committee has jurisdiction on these issues, doesn't think the energy provisions would pass if they were linked to a measure to cap greenhouse-gas emissions.

"My view has been that we have reasonable consensus on quite a few things we can do to meet our energy challenge," Bingaman told reporters on March 5. "I think that it's worthwhile to get that done separate from a cap-and-trade system. I'd hate to see that held hostage while we wait to pass cap-and-trade." He added that cap-and-trade is "not ready for prime time."

Plenty of other senators have qualms about cap-and-trade too, and that will make it considerably more difficult to get a climate bill passed in the Senate than in the House. Last year's Climate Security Act in the Senate didn't get enough votes to cut off debate and move forward. Democrats currently have 58 seats in the chamber, but they're far from unified on climate and energy issues. Ten Democratic senators sent a letter to leadership last year explaining why they would not have voted in favor of final passage of the Climate Security Act, and as many 16 of them are already voicing concerns about an as-yet-nonexistent new climate bill.

A handful of Republican senators will also be needed to get a bill passed, yet opposition to climate legislation is mounting even among those who have in the past said they'd be willing to support a cap-and-trade plan. Last week, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who voted to move forward on last year's bill, bashed the climate components included in President Obama's budget proposal. Also last week, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, told reporters, "I'm open, as are several Republicans, to cap-and-trade, but it's getting increasingly difficult to think about it in the middle of a recession."

On the House side, both Pelosi and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, say they plan to have a bill passed out of committee by Memorial Day, and approved by the full chamber before the U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen in December. "I know that we can get this job done," said Pelosi.

A Pelosi aide told Grist that the leadership believes integrating energy and climate components into one bill might actually help it garner more support in the House, with the energy and grid elements providing incentive for more representatives -- specifically Republicans -- to vote for it. "Our goal here is to make this a bipartisan process here in the House, so that we have as much buy-in as possible," said the aide.

Eben Burnham-Snyder, a spokesperson for Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), chair of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, said that including an RES and efficiency standards in the climate bill would help meet the ultimate goal of fighting global warming. "The important part is that in the end we have the most effective bill possible that will cut emissions in the most aggressive manner and create jobs," said Burnham-Snyder.

Markey has already introduced legislation to establish an RES and promote efficiency. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) plans to introduce a bill on transmission in the next few weeks, and Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) said last week that he plans to reintroduce his 2008 bill to fund carbon-capture-and-sequestration technology for coal-fired power plants.

David Hawkins, director of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council, favors moving a combined bill, noting that it puts the concepts of an RES and efficiency into the context of the greater goal -- moving away from reliance on carbon-based fuel sources. "These are two sides of the same coin," he said. "We've had a number of years of experiments with moving energy legislation without considering climate, and we wind up doing things where we're spending taxpayer dollars on dirty energy sources and on clean energy sources."

But Frank Maisano, who represents the energy industry at the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, thinks "smashing it together" would be a risky move. "There are a lot of complexities with putting everything together like that," he said. "This is a difficult bill. Congress has to do its homework to get it done right."

Dan Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, points out that the way the legislation is packaged is less important than whether or not Congress as a whole is prepared to address the problem of climate change.

"The real question is whether the political urgency is going to catch up with the scientific urgency," said Weiss. While Reid, Pelosi, Waxman, and other congressional leaders have been vocal about the need to move climate legislation as soon as possible, said Weiss, "It's unclear if that urgency is shared by enough other people in either body."

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:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Related Links:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Inhofe to Boxer: “We Won, You Lost, Now Get a Life!”

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:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science