Whether it is wise or not to wait until spring is a mute point. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, has announced that there will be a wait until spring.

Senator Reid is a very savvy fellow. I am sure he and others are doing all sorts of brokering to help find a consensus on many issues, not just on oil drilling and nuclear power. There are many issues that need to be worked out. There are also many competing interests.

Health care will take the limelight and the efforts of many in the Senate for some time. This debate could be far more contentious, emotional and far more important for votes than energy and climate legislation. Will senators leave climate change and energy issues on the table for a while? Many still have staffers working on these issues. Others have shown moderate interest in these issues. Still others will try to broker their own interests in tradeoffs leading to the final energy and environment bills.

Still there are others in the Senate and elsewhere, including me, who think a rush to debate and decide could be a mistake. We need legislation that makes sense for the economic and other prosperity of this country. We need legislation that does not contradict our many other goals and objectives. We need legislation that will work in the long run to help solve some of the most difficult energy security, environmental security, and economic issues we face.

If it takes more time to get people on board for better changes then so be it. If it takes more time to think through the issues involved and the potential solutions to those issues then so be it.

If there is a rush just to get something done on these issues we may regret the results. The energy-environment nexus is very complex. There are many predictions out there on where our energy security and environmental security might be going. But when you dig into many of them you see that their assumptions are riddled with uncertainties by the very facts of the nature of both energy systems and environmental systems.

It is the case that we could be facing down global climate change, peak oil and many other quite difficult problems in the not too distant future. However, the mere fact that we could be facing down these problems does not mean that it is time to rush headlong into politically manipulated results that contradict the basics facts of the complex science, economics, diplomacy and more involved.

As it is best to build a house for the long term it is best to build policies for the long term. I am not convinced that is what is being built at the moment. Will more time help us develop better long term policies? That is not necessarily the case, but a rush won't do that either.

If the delay is just for political reasons then we have problems ahead. If the delay is to bring in more of the professionals and experts who look at these issues with thoughtful and heartfelt realism then this is good. If the delay will give more time for the data and potential forecasts to be checked then so much the better.

I am hoping that the delay is a strategy, rather than a tactic, by some of the leadership to make better decision with more support. If that is not the case then the delay is not toward the development of a national strategy but a short term political tactic. We need long term answers to long term problems. We should not sacrifice the future of this great country to the altar of political expediency and partisanship. My sense is, however, that more in our leadership are starting understand how important many of these energy and environmental issues really are and they want to do the right thing. If the delay is help better educate leaders and their staffs to bring them around to see the problems as they are then this is good. I hope I am not wrong in my cautious optimism. I say cautious because of the overbearing nature of partisanship that exists in the "debates" of today. One of the most important objectives of the delay should be to be to work to get beyond this nationally damaging partisanship which, frankly, threatens us now and may cause long term damage to the country on many issues.

We were frustrated and dismayed when we heard the Senate may not consider an energy and climate bill until spring -- or even later. One senator suggested a vote might not happen until next July. That’s akin to saying the Senate won’t address the legislation until after the 2010 election, because everyone knows full well that by July, campaign season will be well underway and it’s highly unlikely that the Senate would schedule any significant votes.

Congress has waited too long to act. We are compounding the global warming problem with every ton of heat-trapping gas we emit. We have so overloaded our atmosphere with carbon that the world's oceans are declining in their ability to absorb it. We're already seeing the effects of climate change in the ocean: Oceans are becoming more acidic and coral reefs are dying. On top of that are the changes on land that we’ve locked in: changing rainfall patterns, an increase in the number of extremely hot days, and reduced snow cover, which threatens drinking water availability.

Delaying action will not only force us to adapt to worse conditions, it means it will cost more to address the problem. According to the International Energy Administration, every year the world delays taking action will add another $500 billion to what we will have to ultimately spend to cut carbon emissions.

Other countries are jockeying to take advantage. They know that it’s not a question of “if” the world shifts to clean energy, but “when.” They are positioning themselves to be at the forefront of exploding markets for clean energy technologies. In the meantime, Congress dithers.

But this is not just a question of missing an economic opportunity. To save our planet’s ability to sustain life as we know it, all countries must act. That’s why at the international treaty talks, leading up to the climate summit in Copenhagen next month, developed and developing countries have been shaking their heads at the United States, wondering why we are not prepared to work with them.

It’s now clear that a final treaty cannot be reached in Copenhagen because the U.S. Senate has not acted. But the Senate can work with the administration to get the next best thing in Copenhagen: an interim deal. To do that, the administration must commit the United States to significant reductions in its global warming emissions, subject to final congressional action. I’m pleased to see that the administration recently announced that it will put an emissions reduction target on the table in Copenhagen. It hasn’t specified what the number or range will be, but officials said the number would take into account the current Senate bill, which calls for a 20 percent reduction below 2005 levels by 2020, and the bill passed by the House, which calls for a 17 percent cut.

I also was encouraged to hear that U.S. negotiators in Copenhagen will offer short-term financial assistance to help poor nations contend with the effects of global warming. The administration and leaders of other developed countries must also develop a framework to provide substantial long-term assistance to help developing countries adapt to climate change, as well as to reduce their emissions from deforestation, and leapfrog over dirty, fossil-fuel technology to clean, renewable energy sources.

The administration’s announcement is an encouraging sign that should motivate the Senate to get the job done. Once the Senate has passed legislation and the president has signed the final bill into law, a final agreement can be reached on a treaty. This process must take no more than six months. If the Senate insists on delay, we will have fumbled away a tremendous and rapidly diminishing opportunity to stabilize our climate and to restore U.S. leadership as the world’s export engine of clean energy technologies.

Our planet cannot wait much longer for action. The accumulated mass of scientific research tells us clearly there is an urgent need to act if we are to avoid the worst effects of global climate change. As we near international climate negotiations in Copenhagen next month, the reality of American power in the world dictates that we assume the mantle of global leadership and send a clear message that the United States is serious about changing how we generate and use energy. Millions of our unemployed countrymen deserve policies that will create jobs by making America the leader in clean energy technologies, the next wave of global commerce. Forward-thinking business leaders see the financial opportunity in these new markets but need clarity on the rules of the game to unleash the powerful forces of entrepreneurship and innovation. Our military leaders are ringing alarm bells about the national security dangers of our continued reliance on foreign oil and the destabilizing impacts of unchecked climate change. Our doctors, nurses and other public health officials warn of the threat to human health. The people closest to the land – our farmers, sportsmen and conservationists – testify to the troubling changes they see and feel in the natural world every day. And, our faith leaders remind us that we have a duty to our Creator and to future generations to be thoughtful stewards of the Earth.

Leaders from these diverse communities and from across the country, speaking for tens of millions of Americans, want action. Our leaders must heed this call and not stall consideration of comprehensive climate and energy policies further. We must make clear that our impatience is based on the urgency of the crisis and not the politics of the day. The consequences of inaction are far too great not to step up to this challenge and opportunity.

With the 2010 mid-term elections less than a year away, actions that don't promote job growth and stimulate faster economic recovery are a threat to political survival. The public is focused like the proverbial laser and it is still “economy stupid!”

The economy is struggling to recover, while unemployment hovers around 10 percent. With economists uncertain of when our situation will improve, it would be a monumental act of irresponsibility for the Senate to push ahead and give climate legislation a priority over jobs and economic recovery. It would send a chilling message to investors.

Professor Michael Boskin of Stanford wrote a few days ago:

The jobs agenda must begin with a Hippocratic oath: First do no harm to employment. That means jettisoning or at least delaying job-killing energy and health-care legislation with their mandates, taxes, and costs that hammer small businesses.

Every credible economic analysis of cap and trade proposals has concluded that the system will increase unemployment. And now, research shows that the massive health care bills will do likewise. Adding more costs to U.S. industry is a sure fire way to stifle small business employment and to force larger employers to look for non-labor ways to compete and survive

It is incomprehensible that rational decision makers would sacrifice immediate benefits—job creation and economic recovery—to mandate actions that would likely have a trivial impact on a less than certain climate risk.

The fact that global temperatures have not risen in this decade may be an aberration but it may also be indicative of the forces of natural variability. Combine this reality with possible, and I stress possible, manipulation of scientific data as suggested in the release of emails from the U.K. and there is clearly a strong reason to slow down.

Slow down does not mean do nothing. There are many things in the last two Energy Policy Acts which will slow the growth in greenhouse gas emissions. Before gambling with a weak economy, the Obama Administration and Congress need to better understand what has caused the recent cooling and to determine whether the release of these emails shows evidence of scientific fraud.

Postponing the vote on climate change legislation carries both political risks and possible rewards. But decision-makers shouldn’t abandon the most pivotal element of the bill: a price on greenhouse gas emissions. Breaking down the legislation into smaller pieces to avoid confrontation about carbon pricing is a bad idea.

In addressing global warming, the worst case scenario for our economy would be a patchwork of overlapping policies and rules that would cost more and do less to reduce our greenhouse gases.

Enacting one bill to deal with power plants, and then a smattering of rules to deal with other sources may be politically wise, but it is terrible policy. It all but guarantees that the economy will be burdened with a host of unnecessary compliance costs.

Bereft of a wider pricing element, legislation will not go far enough to set an economy-wide signal to spur clean energy investment. According to a recent survey conducted by the Institute for Policy Integrity, 98% of economists with the most expertise in climate policy believe that placing a price on carbon will incentivize efficiency and innovation. Without this crucial piece, legislation will cost too much, and is likely to achieve too little.

As Carol Browner, President Obama's senior aide on climate and energy issues recently pointed out, given the choice, businesses would not prefer this half-step. It goes back to the more traditional style of command-and-control regulations that create unnecessary compliance costs and a less predictable environment in which to make longer term energy investments.

Though bill in the Senate is not perfect, its central function—an economy-wide carbon price—is its most effective feature. Half measures may look like savings to moderate Democrats but they actually represent a serious downgrade in economic efficiency. It would be a penny-wise pound-foolish approach that could cause significant economic harm.

One fundamental issue lost in the global warming debate, even amongst some environmental groups, is that the science behind taking significant action is overwhelming. Such significant action is more than loophole-laden cap and trade bills with meager reduction targets; it is about a massive transformation from a fossil fuel society to a renewable energy society, top to bottom (and bottom to top). The reason the Senate bill has been delayed, quite obviously, is that it has nowhere near the 60 votes necessary for passage. And it doesn't have the 60 votes because instead of discussing the true calamitous impacts of global warming, and the hard choices our society needs to make (some of which will very fortunately create new green jobs), the Senate process has already degenerated into federal budget favors for every recalcitrant senator "on the fence." The result is a complicated, hypocritcal and ineffective 1000 page bill that no grassroots organizer can possibly sell on Main Street. Ironically, as the Obama administration publicly wrings it hands approaching Copenhagen about what it can do, the White House and EPA full well know that they already have full authority to reduce greenhouse pollutants to "350 ppm" targets in a way completely familiar to federal, state and local government officials under the Clean Air Act. And no one has answered the bottom line question here: do we really believe the current Senate shell game is simpler and more effective than the existing Clean Air Act?

There is no question that clean energy will be a 2010 election issue, and a politically potent one at that. When the Senate considers clean energy and climate legislation next year, incumbents would be wise to vote for it and candidates would be wise to support it. Embracing new, clean energy policies while exposing opponents’ ties to the greedy oil companies that oppose energy reform helped propel Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008. And recent polling proves there is strong voter support for concrete legislation that creates jobs, reduces pollution and increases energy independence.

In August, the Benenson Strategy Group, which served as the Obama campaign’s chief pollster during the presidential campaign, conducted a poll in 16 battleground states. When asked a question about the impacts of a bill that limits pollution and invests in clean energy, voters believed by a 2-1 margin that the bill would create jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Even in Arkansas, where political pundits say clean energy legislation is a hard sell, voters supported a comprehensive energy bill like the House-passed American Clean Energy & Security Act by a solid 18-point margin, according to a September poll conducted by the Benenson Strategy Group.

What should be most comforting to incumbents and candidates looking ahead to 2010 is that support holds strong even under the most withering and dishonest attacks about the bill. In Arkansas, after hearing a statement representing both sides of the argument, support held at a 19-point margin.

The bottom line is that voters instinctively believe that new energy policies—including a limit on carbon pollution—will have tangible positive benefits for the economy and our security. Next year, candidates would be well served to recognize that support for clean energy and climate legislation represents the convergence of good policy and smart politics.

As I was growing up, my mother always reminded me that “all good things come to those that wait.” With so much on Congress’ plate, and the economy continuing to falter, Sen. Reid’s decision to slow down the pace of the energy and climate bill and give the Senate more time to work out the details is a wise one.

For agriculture and rural America, it gives much-needed time to model and study all the consequences (intended and unintended) of Waxman-Markey and craft fixes to those problems where possible that already have been discovered. We are confident that the new chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Blanche Lincoln, will make good use of this time to better understand the full implications of this legislation and help craft a sound path forward.

One area that will clearly benefit from this delay is the pace of forestation – the conversion of crop and pasture land to forest – predicted as a result of the offset program under Waxman Markey. This is not a new problem; EPA has been well aware of it going back to at least its economic assessment of Warner-Leiberman. But it has taken on an air of heightened importance as the prospect of passing climate legislation increased.

Simply put, while the actual rates vary slightly, EPA’s and others’ economic analyses of the bill that were mindful of land use patterns have shown a dramatic shift in acreage from food and feed production to forest land –up to 50 million acres over the life of the bill. Some, betting on yet-to-be economical technologies for cellulosic biomass conversion to ethanol, are speculating that rather than forests being planted on this cropland landowners would convert to perennial cellulosic biomass crops like switchgrass. Either way, when combined with 30 million acres already consumed by the Conservation Reserve Program, and another 40 million acres necessary to meet the demands of the ethanol industry’s Renewable Fuels Standard, this could pull more than a third of U.S. agricultural lands out of production feed grain production. Indeed, EPA’s own internal analysis shows the impact of this policy to be up to a 60 percent increase in the price of corn and the loss of significant portions of U.S. livestock, which has seen all its equity eroded in the face of runaway ethanol subsidies and mandates.

EPA’s agricultural models don’t paint as drastic a long term picture since they considered an 80-year timeframe with some land slowly reverting back to production after 40 years of conversion to forest.

Perhaps.

But even so I know a lot of crop farmers and livestock users of feed grains who will probably be forced out of business in those scenarios’ first 40 years, That some crop production and some of the lost feed grain supply might recover is no comfort to them and their families, even if the latter 40 year estimates could be relied on. And of course, there are the profound and morally inescapable questions this raises for the 3 billion more people we expect in the world in the next 40 years, a period when most experts predict we need to double food production worldwide.

Taking a step back now and looking at all these issues and thoughtfully addressing them is a good thing. The Senate’s bill will only be strengthened by allowing the Agriculture Committee additional time to work on their part of the solution.

Extra time might be helpful in pulling together the compromises necessary to reach 60 votes, but the Senate should not let the schedule slip beyond early spring.

Every day that passes increases the risk that climate legislation will be overtaken by 2010 campaign politics, pushing resolution of the issue out for at least another year. Every day that passes increases the risk of the U.S. losing energy technology manufacturing jobs to other countries. Every day that passes brings continuing uncertainty for utilities trying to plan power plant investments that will last for decades. Every day that passes perpetuates America’s dangerous dependence on oil and our vulnerability to hostile oil-exporting regimes.

Congress needs to get off the dime. We urge Senate leaders to work constructively with Lindsey Graham and other Republicans who are willing to work in good faith to pull together a bipartisan climate bill. It’s past time to begin retooling our energy economy so that we reduce climate risks, stimulate growth of new energy technologies, get off the oil dependence treadmill, and move towards a future of clean, secure, and reliable energy for all Americans.

Every day the cap and tax legislation is not on the Senate floor is a good day for American families. Quite simply, the longer it is delayed, the greater the opportunity everyday Americans have to learn about its economic impacts. And the more they learn, the less they like. To even suggest that this job killing bill, which by design is intended to increase the cost of eighty-five percent of the energy we use to heat our homes, fuel our cars and power our businesses, could possibly be considered as part of a larger effort to address the economy is incongruous and unbecoming. Wishful thinking has never created a job. Affordable energy has. Those are the facts. No amount of horse trading, backroom wheeling and dealing, allowances treated, or sweeteners added will offset the long-term damage this massive energy tax will have on our economy. It is time to move on.

It’s better to do it right than to do it fast – so I think Senator Reid is making the right call.

While I’d certainly prefer to have a climate bill sooner rather than later, delaying debate until the spring gives time to draw together the set of compromises that are going to be needed to make the bill palatable to at least 60 Senators – and especially to address concerns of the group of moderates who are running for re-election next year.

The Kerry-Graham-Lieberman process is a welcome development, and their process will be further enhanced with the engagement of the Obama Administration. Having a fully engaged Executive will help steer the process toward an outcome that meets the environmental need while stimulating new economic activity.

This is a golden moment, when the President could help galvanize a broad political consensus around an emissions trading solution to climate change. I think the President may find some interesting allies, given the positioning of interest groups, The power sector is ready for a solution – they need the certainty to build new clean-energy infrastructure, and they want to avoid the morass of an EPA-regulatory regime that is moving forward in response to the Supreme Court ruling in 2007. Many large industrials are in the same posture. So roughly two-thirds of the covered industries are ready to deal.

It is important to acknowledge that the Waxman Markey bill got a lot of things right. If Senator Reid and the Administration are to be successful in the spring, they’ll do well to build on the fundamental model of emissions trading that won a majority vote in the House. They can keep costs down with banking, borrowing and use of domestic and international offsets. The cost containment provided by international offsets is dramatic and critical – every major study of greenhouse gas regulation has reached this conclusion. In fact, the EPA’s analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill found that the costs of the cap and trade program would increase by 89 percent without international offsets. And by cutting the costs of a cap and trade program almost in half, international offsets also preserve U.S. jobs and competitiveness

So what are the biggest problem areas?

Most of the angst about the major bills arises from the oil industry, because refiners are required to purchase all of the allowances to compensate for use of their fuels. They run the ads and confuse the public with cries of high taxes and economic pain. It would be better to see them offer constructive suggestions about how best to adapt the emissions trading model so that their sector does its fair share of emissions reductions.

Some Senators are worried about whether the “trading” part of the policy could be abused. The new market oversight system that emerges from the Financial Services Reform efforts will provide effective CFTC oversight of carbon markets – so Senators can take comfort in the fact that these new markets will be regulated in parallel with other energy commodity markets.

Finally, I hope Senators take note of the newest information on the success of the EU ETS. Emissions are down – industry is coping – and Europe is well on its way to meeting its emissions reduction goals. IETA released a study two weeks ago highlighting the success of this and other environmental markets in delivering on the promise of meeting emissions goals at low cost.

I think one aspect of the EU system goes unheralded: the strong industry support for emissions trading that has appeared, now that the system is operational. It offers proof that a simple emissions trading system works – using effective limits on emissions, ample flexibility to comply with on-system controls or emissions offsets – and a an integrated system of market oversight for energy and emissions markets.

In the case of this week’s announcement of the Senate delay, inactions speak louder than words. By suspending further consideration of the climate bill until 2010, Democrats are signaling that it’s not high on their priority list. This move also suggests that they’re starting to realize that the high cost and incredible intrusiveness of cap and trade would only exacerbate the problems evident in trying to pass comprehensive health care legislation. So, from a political perspective, this delay wasn’t just a smart choice; it was a requisite one.

Senate leadership is likely gambling that by spring the public’s unhappiness with Congress and the actions that triggered the Tea Parties will have passed. Though the odds of that happening in the next four months don’t look good, their better than current chances. Moving ahead now would mean almost certain failure.

During the ’92 presidential campaign, James Carville crafted the now famous statement, “It’s the economy stupid.” Almost two decades later, that lesson seems lost on Congress. Many members are showing that they are out of touch with a large segment of the American electorate who’s first, second, and third priorities are the economy. And the public’s growing disappointment with Congress’s failure to fashion policies that will enable a faster recovery is starting to become palpable in Washington – especially as many legislators begin to look ahead to the 2010 midterm elections.

Piling on more and more debt and taking actions that increase costs to the consumer at a time of severe economic difficulty is in direct conflict with our best interest. And few things exemplify this Congressional disconnect with the priorities of Main Street America more than the Senate’s cap and trade bill. On climate, as well as health care, lawmakers are forging a dubious path that few Americans want to follow.

If unemployment is still hovering around 10% next spring and there are not clearer signs of a stronger economic recovery, it is hard to see moderate Democrats voting for a bill that will raise energy costs and add to unemployment. This could further damage the relevance of Sen. Boxer’s Environment and Public Works Committee while correspondingly increasing the importance of Sen. Bingaman’s Energy Committee. Providing opportunities and incentives for domestic energy development, including nuclear, is clearly in the national interest. The faster that is done, the faster we will reduce the growth in imports from insecure sources and create the high paying jobs associated with oil and gas exploration. At the same time, the Senate Energy Committee could identify and act to remove barriers to faster deployment of energy efficiency technologies to continue the good progress in reducing carbon intensity.

The recent acknowledgement by U.N. officials that next month’s climate meeting in Copenhagen will not produce a new global mandate to force costly reductions in greenhouse gas emissions should send a message to the Senate that programs that are not practical and grounded in reality are doomed to failure. Cap and trade is just another version of the failed Kyoto Protocol. And if not abandoned, it will fail – taking political careers down with it.

Decades ago, Senator Everett Dirksen said that when he felt the heat, he saw the light. Right now, Senators are feeling a lot of heat. Time will tell if they see the light.

Hope springs eternal, but the idea of waiting to "spring" for Senate action doesn't fill me with hope. In 2010, the Senate will convene in January, not March. The Senate's unfinished business on clean energy and climate should be on deck as the Senate's highest priority after health care. Speaker Pelosi and the House worked impressively already this year to pass a clean energy jobs bill that puts America on a leadership pathway for reducing pollution and tackling climate change. When health care is done, the Senate needs to turn to the energy reform and climate package that Majority Leader Reid has put in motion. As we head into 2010, President Obama should make clear that delivering the clean energy jobs & climate bill to his desk is his top priority for unfinished business.

In the meantime, President Obama will send a team to the climate negotiations in Copenhagen. He has been an impressive leader on climate change in his first year -- from tailpipe standards to a promising new dialogue with China. But Copenhagen and the coming months will be the pivotal test of whether he can break through the politics of inaction and the millions of dollars spent by oil companies and their allies to block progress. It is unlikely that the President will close the final deal on a new global agreement in December. More likely, he will prepare the way with an interim deal and ask the world to wait on Congress for the final package. If so, it will take a vigorous White House determination to advance the bipartisan efforts being led by Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman to the front of the line.

Americans have had enough delay. We can't afford to wait and let clean energy jobs go to other countries ready to invest in clean energy. We can't wait to break our addiction to oil. We can't wait to take the responsible steps necessary to protect people and wildlife from a warming world.

Yes, extra time can allow fresh ideas to enter the debate, but Congress also runs the very real risk of letting EPA’s regulatory deadlines overtake the legislative process. EPA action before Congress has had adequate time to develop a sound greenhouse gas reduction policy is the worst-case scenario. As early as March, EPA could issue rules that would lead to regulation of GHG emissions at stationary sources. This would stop smart investment in American manufacturing dead in its tracks. The very investments the United States needs to make for an energy-efficient economy would be subject to permitting by EPA. At a time when Congress and the Administration are getting ready to unveil a job creation agenda, EPA’s planned regulation of GHG emissions will drive even more manufacturing jobs out of the country. Congress should redouble its efforts to develop effective emissions reduction legislation, but I would argue that Congress’s top priority is to stop EPA from moving forward with a regulatory train wreck that EPA estimates could cost as much as $55.5 billion and deliver, by its own admission, "absurd results." EPA is trying to contain the worst of the harmful results, but its workaround (the tailoring rule) may not withstand legal scrutiny. The best action here is for Congress to give EPA a "time out" from proceeding with its rulemaking affecting stationary sources and have time to pass its own effective emissions reduction policies.