There’s no question that the current focus on health care reform has partially eclipsed the debate over climate change legislation. But, Senate leadership continues to list climate as a priority issue for the Fall.

I believe the Senate should act now to establish a national climate policy that makes substantial emission reductions, while doing everything possible to protect consumers. In fact, incorporating strong consumer protection provisions—such as allowance allocations, a price collar, adequate offsets and reasonable emission targets and timetables—is essential to building the support necessary to move a bill in the Senate.

Any meaningful effort to tackle climate change will produce higher energy costs, and it is important that Congress make every effort to reduce the price impact on customers. This is a very reasonable approach that I believe will resonate well beyond the Beltway.

Updated at 9:19 a.m. on Aug. 20.

I have to agree with William O’Keefe when he states: “The tidal wave of legislative activity over the past 10 months has overwhelmed the public’s digestive system.”

The Obama Administration is falling into the trap of trying to do much, too soon, too quickly, and without explaining things carefully in compartmentalized and comprehensible ways. The public is confused, and some are angry. It is the nature of many people, especially those not constantly in tune with the specifics of certain topics, such as climate change, health care economics, energy security, and the economics of national debt, to be very concerned about so many changes occurring at once– without these changes being properly explained.

President Obama is a very smart fellow. He can carry many ideas, policies, and concepts in his head at the same time. He is a well-trained lawyer with a scholarly bent. However, most people do not have his level of knowledge or training on the subjects. They need to be given clear explanations of one change at a time.

This is in no way a criticism of the American people. They are mostly very busy people who are wondering what all of these changes mean for them. They also mostly don’t like to be lectured to.

President Obama is quite capable of starting to get clearer and more compartmentalized messages out. However, he needs to get moving on this quickly before things are lost in the noise.

Those in power who take differing opinions and are pandering to the baser instincts should cease and desist before this noise becomes something else. Leaders in business, politics, academia, and more should bring greater clarity to the debate. The American people, who in the end pay for the government, deserve this. Political leaders are public servants as well as leaders.

If things are explained clearly, and at one major issue at a time, then the American people will get it. Trying to change too many things at once has also opened up some talking space and strategic space to the extremists in our own country. Indeed, we do have such extremists.

The ignorance of the extremists cannot be allowed to take over the debate. When there is fear, uncertainty, insecurity, and lack of knowledge on what is happening extremists can walk into the breach. The growing “hitlerization” of the debate on health care and the carrying of weapons at political gatherings may be just the beginning of this. Barney Frank reduced this to a problem of talking to the “dining room table”, but it is a lot deeper than that. It has to be confronted properly, thoughtfully, and with a calm focus on what is best for the country and its people.

I do not agree with Mr. O’Keefe that it is a good thing that environmental and energy legislation will be lost in the noise. These are very important issues that need to be dealt with in thoughtful, proper and open-minded ways. The heat without light generated from the health care debate might just migrate into the environment and energy debates in some way by some political leaders in order to deflect the problems they face elsewhere. But I worry more that with the health care screaming match (not a debate) the light and the heat of the discussions on environmental legislation may be overwhelmed.

These are difficult and stressful times for the American people. This is a time for fireside chats, not brickbats. Until some educating calm is brought into the discussions we may see some very good solutions to some vital and pressing problems disappear into confusing noises of too many angry or self-serving conversations happening all at once. It is time for real leadership, and I know that such leadership is there.

The health care debate that has been taking place will likely suck the oxygen out of any major legislation for the remainder of the year. And, that is a good thing.

The tidal wave of legislative activity over the past 10 months has overwhelmed the public’s digestive system. The enormous increase in the national debt as well as the concentration of power in Washington has caused a major political backlash across the nation.

What we know is that Congress has been acting without understanding. Case in point: The American Clean Energy and Security Act. The 1,200-plus pages of the House climate bill offer more than enough proof that Congress is acting on the basis of preconceived notions while ignoring information that conflicts with those.

Barbara Tuchman in her book the “March of Folly” dubbed such behavior as “wooden headedness.”

In light of the rapidly growing body of research, there should be little doubt that cap-and-trade is an inferior climate policy just as a public option for health care is not only inferior but potentially destructive. The majority of voters may not understand the nuanced mechanics of either the problems with our environment or medical system. Yet, they still have the good judgment to know when they are being sold a bill of goods. And they should expect better from their elected officials.

Lawmakers need not aim for perfect but only better judgment and fairness in legislating. Members of Congress are going through a learning experience, and the lesson is that Americans are moderate politically and will react strongly to actions they judge to be extreme. Since current proposals on health care and climate are not moderate or well thought, the public just isn’t buying.

The 2003 McCain-Lieberman bill was 58 pages. It was a market-based solution put forth from the center-right aisle. McCain-Lieberman’s simplicity was this - cap emissions, create tradeable permits, make emitters pay for the permits gradually over a few decades, and recognize that less carbon means less foreign oil and more energy efficiency. Waxman-Markey is 1427 pages. Is this “super-sized” bill better than the original? Can’t most of it’s extra 1369 pages be handled by Federal Agencies, States, and the private sector (yes, the smart grid might need a seperate bill - but not much else). Can we expect “super-sized climate” to fair any better than “super-sized healthcare”? Doubtful. Personally, I would love to see 2% per annum abatement requirements on large electric power and industrial sources (off a 2005 baseline) effected by the EPA - with trading just amongst emitters for over/under abatement (see www.justcapit.org). But Congress and the Administration need an Ocam’s Razor approach to get climate done on top of healthcare.

While the focus in the media this summer has been almost entirely on the health care debate, the August Congressional recess is also a very critical time for the future of the climate bill (“American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009”) recently passed by the House of Representatives. Much of the debate on climate legislation thus far has focused on the bill’s impact on utility rates, rather than the potential for climate legislation to become the catalyst for a new clean energy economy and a sustainable business environment.

Moving toward a cleaner, lower-carbon economy is a signature agenda item of the Obama Administration, and, for many emerging clean energy industries, the outcome of the debate on this legislation will determine whether their full potential is realized.

The Alliance to Save Energy is working with a broad coalition of environmental organizations and industry leaders to help refocus the climate debate on the economic potential of the bill; we believe that there needs to be a strong message - delivered from business voices - that clean energy and climate change policies can result in a strong economy and good jobs, and are vital to our country’s financial recovery. The message our coalition will send constituents is that energy and climate legislation will help create new jobs and a clean energy economy.

Additionally, our message will strongly emphasize the role of energy-efficiency policies in containing the costs of climate legislation. Contrary to a common misunderstanding – reflected in the July 6^th discussion on this blog Should Uncle Sam Turn Down Our Lights?– energy efficiency refers not to personal sacrifices in energy consumption but to smarter energy use through stronger standards for our new buildings and appliances, improvements on older structures, and more educated consumer awareness of energy choices. All together, a strong emphasis on energy efficiency policies will save consumers money in the long-run, thus off-setting utility rate increases that will occur with our without a cap and trade bill, while bringing a strong clean energy economy within reach.

Energy efficiency policies and programs will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions below the level of a cap, but—if well designed and implemented—they will contribute to meeting the cap with lower cost abatement, and thus will reduce the cost of a climate bill while growing the green economy. A recent McKinsey and Company report found that if the power of efficiency were to be unleashed, we could see gross energy savings of more than $1.2 trillion and a reduction in end-use energy consumption in 2020 by 9.1 quadrillion BTUs, roughly 23 percent of projected demand for that year. Energy efficiency saves money by reducing household and business energy costs. Perhaps the most compelling expression of this fact is that, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in 2025 the American Clean Energy and Security Act will save American households about $150 per year, relative to business as usual,as compared to a projected increase by $10 per year for the same cap-and-trade program without energy efficiency provisions.

Fortunately, ACES got it right on energy efficiency, and members of both chambers of Congress should talk to their constituents over the recess about the benefits to their pocket books, to our overall economy and to our energy security that will come from building a clean energy future on a strong foundation of energy efficiency. For our part, we will be working together with the hundreds of companies across America that supply energy efficiency and renewable energy resources to demonstrate to all of our citizens the role played by clean energy in building a strong national economy and a sustainable business environment.

I hope members of Congress come back from their districts and states with a renewed determination to pass comprehensive energy and environmental legislation before the end of the year. It won’t be easy—it never is. With all of the pressures they are facing from constituents, and with hard choices to make, the easiest course for members is to do nothing about our energy security and environmental challenges. But putting off action won’t make the problems disappear—and there are solutions that the public supports.

Our biggest challenge is energy security—reducing our dependence on foreign oil. We can achieve this goal by requiring more efficient automobiles, making our homes and businesses more energy efficient, and increasing our use of renewable energy to generate electricity. Taking these actions will also create jobs.

So far this year, members of Congress and the Obama Administration have begun taking action to accomplish all of these objectives. The President used his authority to require more fuel-efficient vehicles. Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which is helping the renewable energy industry weather the financial crisis. This past spring, both the House and Senate began work on comprehensive legislation that creates incentives for energy efficiency and requires increased use of renewable energy. Even though legislators struggled to move these measures forward, public opinion polls show there is broad public support for all of these actions.

Now it is time for members of Congress to come back and finish the job. First, Congress needs to pass a strengthened renewable electricity standard (RES) that will lead to increased use of wind and other renewables in electricity generation. Second, we need transmission legislation that removes the obstacles that stand in the way of a green power superhighway that carry electricity generated from renewable energy.

This may seem like a tall order, but I believe this Congress and this Administration understand what is at stake and are up to the task.

With health care issues dominating the national debate, is climate change getting lost in the shuffle? Will that kill chances of passing climate legislation this fall? After members of Congress have been attacked in town hall meetings on health care, will they avoid taking bold positions on other controversial issues, particularly climate change?

And what impact, if any, will the American Petroleum Institute's "energy citizen" rallies and advertising blitzes by other business groups and by the environmental community have on the discussion?

Watching daily news coverage of town hall meetings calls to mind a scene from the movie “Network” where lead character Peter Finch shouts “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore.” Citizens are mad as hell and with good reason too. 

Over the course of the past year, US voters have seen the value of their retirement funds and their houses plummet. They’ve witnessed their government embarking on a $2 trillion spending spree. And they’ve watched a concerted move to concentrate power in Washington through bailouts, takeovers, and legislative proposals on health care and climate. Individuals have rightfully concluded that they’re being misled, that their government has not acted in their best interest, and that many in Congress are out of touch.

Trust in government is eroding as citizens see their government planning actions that benefit special interests over main street Americans.  

While many of these town hall events have been focused on health care, climate policy stays close to the surface. The spectacle of the deals cut to get passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) offers compelling evidence that this legislation has less to do with climate and clean energy and more to do with Washington and well-funded activists deciding how the rest of us should lead our lives.  And, most Americans still don’t realize that this legislation would mandate a national building standard for energy efficiency that would drive up the cost of home ownership and subject them to fines for non compliance.

The average citizen shouldn’t feel insecure for not understanding most details of ACES -- neither do most of the Congressmen who voted for it.

Still, most of the bill can be summarized with the old adage, “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.” Some cap-and-trade advocates have tried defending their “yay” votes by echoing many of these “too good to be true” claims. But assertions that the cost of the ACES to the average person would be no more than a postage stamp just draw more skepticism from a rightfully incredulous public.

Common sense dictates that this bill will carry a very large price tag. America’s economy is driven by fossil fuels, and the alternatives simply are not cost competitive or able to come on line fast enough to meet the emissions targets mandated by the legislation. Even aside from these unrealistic goals, ACES will do little for controlling greenhouse gases because their growth is coming from the developing world -- particularly China and India -- which isn’t going to sacrifice economic growth at the altar of climate orthodoxy.

The bottom line is that energy use and economic growth are closely related, and the public knows that forcing less traditional energy use will directly hamper the economy.

Congress and the White House would have more credibility on the climate issue if they were honest about the magnitude of the climate challenge and proposed realistic objectives and a simple means to accomplish them. A carbon tax with a rebate to taxpayers and greater investment in R&D would do more for wise climate policy than a 1,000-plus page bill that concentrates power in the bureaucracy and rewards the favored.