There are several reasons why the Senate should pass an energy and climate bill that includes energy efficiency provisions, a strong national renewable electricity standard, and a cap-and-trade program, early this year. The legislation would create lots of good jobs for American workers, enhance our national security by reducing oil imports and minimizing conflict and disruption from climate impacts, and protect the environment. We would like to see lawmakers pass the bill by April 22. That would give us something monumental to celebrate on Earth Day’s 40th anniversary and give legislators plenty of time to hit the campaign trial.

President Obama recently addressed one of the biggest hurdles to the Senate passing a bill -- members’ concerns that constraining U.S. global warming emissions would give China an economic edge. At the U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen, the president helped broker the Copenhagen Accord. In it, China and other major developing countries, including India, South Africa and Brazil, agreed to limit their emissions and to a process of analysis and review that allows the outside world to verify that these countries are doing what they say they’re doing.

In fact, China began addressing global warming long before Copenhagen. For example, China has already enacted fuel economy standards for new cars that are stronger than our own and plans to strengthen them over time. Chinese investment in renewable energy is second only to Germany; China is investing some $12 million an hour in renewables, more than the United States. And over the last three years, China has improved its energy efficiency by 10 percent. China’s track record, along with the commitments it made in Copenhagen, should ease lawmakers’ concerns, though China could have worked harder to get a stronger agreement out of Copenhagen.

The Copenhagen agreement is far from perfect. It does not yet commit countries to emissions reductions that are ambitious enough to prevent the worst consequences of global warming. But the agreement marks the first time the world’s largest emitters, including developing countries, have agreed to confront the problem in a concrete, collective way. That leaves the Senate no excuse to not act.

It should be obvious to anyone who watched the health care debate that it’s no easy feat to design legislation that will win the support of enough members to pass a floor vote. But Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), are working diligently together to refine a bill – and the principles they released prior to Copenhagen make it clear they are serious about legislating this year. These leaders understand why it’s critical to enact legislation immediately. We already know that we will have to adapt to the effects of climate change we cannot avoid; we’ll have to strengthen and relocate our levies, sea walls and bridges to protect our coasts from rising sea levels; beef up our public health systems to cope with more frequent and severe summer heat waves; and, in several Western states, devise ways to cope with water shortages due to shrinking snow packs. The longer we wait to act, the worse the consequences will be. Unchecked climate change could saddle taxpayers, businesses, and state and local governments across the country with hundreds of billions of dollars in damages. The cost of inaction would far outweigh the costs of taking preventive action now.

The final legislation must include a cap-and-trade program to put a price on carbon emissions, which would enable us to shift to clean energy sources. In the meantime, the Senate must not undercut the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate global warming emissions under the Clean Air Act. Climate change is such a colossal problem that we can’t afford to throw out any tool we have to address it.

With the health care debate over for now, senators need to think more about their constituents and less about their campaign contributors. The House passed a serviceable bill last June. It’s now time for the Senate to do the hard work we elected them to do.

December was a tough month – disappointing climate negotiations in Copenhagen, contentious health care votes in the Senate, and a Christmas scare from Al Qaeda topping it off. But as the dust settles on the climate beat, Copenhagen had some redeeming features - and there is still a huge opportunity for the Senate to lead the nation forward on climate policy.

The Senate – and President Obama - shouldn’t let the opportunity to adopt cap and trade legislation slip away in 2010. They enjoy broader industry and environmental political support than ever before. When you see the coalition of support from U.S. CAP companies and EEI, you know that you’re in reach of legislation that can garner 60 votes. The typical industry opposition to climate legislation is fractured – with only the oil industry writing checks for ads opposing the legislation. Even in a complicated political environment, there is both a call for climate and energy solutions and an opening to create legislation that has a measurable positive impact.

This year’s legislative scenario is much different than times past. Senators don’t really face a choice of doing something or nothing this time: instead, they face a choice of whether to legislate a new law, or to regulate under existing law. The latter approach costs more, is less effective and will hobbleindustry’s ability to modernize our energy infrastructure. It is this important element – modernization – that builds new things and employs people. That’s where the jobs are. As Senators review the options, this reality should embolden a new majority to form around a workable cap and trade bill that is good for the environment and good for the economy.

No offense to the authors of other blog entries here – but the only things worse than “cap and trade” are “carbon taxes” that don’t meet environmental goals and come at an even larger political cost (can you remember the “BTU tax”?). “Starting from scratch” proposals to run out the legislative clock and relegate industry to deal with EPA’s endangerment progeny of regulations will undoubtedly cost far more. Taxes and regulation aren’t preferable solutions – they are far worse ideas.

Finally, there is an important international dimension worth noting. The world community has been waiting for 9 years for true U.S. leadership on the climate challenge. As the dust settles on the Copenhagen Summit, it is clear that the United States succeeded in showing the world that our President is fully engaged. He secured a path forward for negotiations next year on an international treaty that includes a policy formula that will work: effective medium- and long-term, with flexible, market-based implementation. These are the hallmarks of the Waxman-Markey bill, and they should form the backbone of the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill. If the Senate can adopt cap and trade legislation, it will strengthen President Obama’s hand as he deals with foreign leaders this year – making it more likely that the Mexico negotiations will be fruitful.

My view of Senate prospects for passing climate change legislation (CCL) this year is that it’s possible, but not probable. Some discrete elements such as a national renewable energy standard might pass, although it’s too early to see if sufficient interest in a more limited energy bill will emerge. I also disagree with the premises behind this week's question that (1) December was a bad month for climate policy; and (2) the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman principles to date are not a solid foundation from which to generate a Senate consensus.

December was, on balance, a productive month for climate policy. China, India, Brazil and others are on board with respect to controlling their carbon emissions. Hence, we’re no longer talking about "whether," but "how" and "when." That result, while not the same as firm binding commitments, was not a foregone conclusion in November, and seems to remove a significant "optics" Senate impediment.

Sen. Byrd (D-W.Va.) announced to coal country constituents that CCL is unavoidable. This effort may provide cover for, and perhaps motivation to, other moderate "coal state (producer or consumer)" Democrats to begin more serious deliberations. Most importantly, healthcare legislation is largely complete – critical because that debate was sucking the air from the room and shows a 60-vote path for CCL may be available with limited Republican support.

However, mid-term elections loom. They’re always about the base first (because of lower turn out, no base, no win, no matter how broad the appeal to moderate voters). They’re also always about, at least in the first instance, the economy. These two priorities don’t disqualify CCL from consideration, since it would appeal to Obama's base and is being sold as, and polling suggests, is viewed by much of the electorate as, a "green jobs" bill.

Also, Democrats are concerned that the expected loss of some House and Senate seats would make climate change bill passage next year more of a gamble (recently announced Senate retirements underscore this point, although those retirements appear to have little bearing on actions this year). However, the conventional and probably better wisdom is that Democrats don’t want another healthcare type of 60-vote fight in an election year, and instead can be expected not to proceed with CCL without some level of Republican support up front in crafting a bill.

Republican support in crafting and supporting a Senate climate change isn’t promising but is possible. Enter Kerry-Graham-Lieberman. While it seems unlikely that Kerry-Graham-Lieberman can develop sufficient momentum to attract enough additional Republican support to move a nominally bipartisan climate change bill by spring, the group's approach is to build a big energy policy tent in an effort to do just that.

From a policy perspective, Kerry-Graham-Lieberman are taking the correct approach to CCL – to build on the largely workable House legislation, and add in provisions that the House bill didn’t address sufficiently or at all. Most of those additional issues fall under the "energy policy" rubric, and include additional and more specific provisions to encourage nuclear power (providing sufficient incentives for this option as was done for renewables), provisions to further address transmission planning, and more specific provisions to encourage and make viable carbon capture and storage (the House bill provided incentives, but failed to resolve liability, siting and other critical issues).

These provisions may have appeal to moderate Democrats and some Republicans. Also, the principles add an energy independence theme that will allow additional domestic oil and gas production. While these additional provisions will provide broader appeal to moderates and Republicans than the House bill, they also form the outlines of a comprehensive national energy policy – the better overall approach since cap and trade will ultimately transform the entire energy production industry.

One key cap change under consideration in Kerry-Graham-Lieberman is a carbon price collar (min. and max. price). While that mechanism has long had merit, if only to limit "doomsday" scenarios to the upper bound of the price collar, it becomes more critical after Copenhagen. Modeling of the House bill indicates that international offsets are the key moderating factor on allowance prices, and their general availability in quantity is the biggest pricing variable. Most available international offsets come or would come from China, India, Brazil and other countries that have agreed to address carbon emissions. If they adopt reduction programs, reductions won’t be available as offsets to U.S. developers, and the likelihood that allowance prices will spike to politically unsustainable levels increases. A price cap limits this risk, while allowing the market to do better if it can.

I disagree that Kerry-Graham-Lieberman principles are "vague." While words like “cap” aren’t used, a close read indicates the principles (1) would be met by a broad economy-wide cap and trade program that provides free allocations to the power sector and some/much of the industrial sector and auctions off the rest to fund carbon reduction initiatives and to mitigate low and middle income consumers (i.e., the House bill); and (2) are clear where they’re considering elements that are not in the House bill.

The clearest principle element is the commitment to seek passage of "climate change and energy independence legislation this Congress." While an uphill struggle awaits passage "this Congress," enough elements may be in play (jobs, energy independence, expanded oil and gas production, nuclear, CCS) to generate momentum.

In the wake of the Copenhagen Summit, there is momentum for the U.S. to establish its global clean energy leadership—and to embrace initiatives that will create American jobs. Any bill that comes out of the Senate will have to address these dual priorities—creating jobs and aiding our economic recovery, while taking concrete, attainable steps toward reaching the ambitious environmental and energy goals set out by the Democratic majority.

I believe a simple shift in philosophy would help—embracing a “clean” ethos that includes renewables, yes, but also allows low-carbon options among more traditional energy resources, such as natural gas, to contribute to our nation’s clean energy portfolio. Dr. Joseph Stanislaw, an original proponent of this idea, makes a strong case in a recent white paper released by the Deloitte Center for Energy Solutions.

Such an approach would allow our nation to reach our environmental goals faster, while simultaneously fueling our economic recovery. The report also makes it clear that natural gas needs to become a bigger player in any bill. The report calls this point out by stating that “[t]he marginalization of natural gas, which the U.S. has in increasing abundance, should be an area of focused attention” and that “[n]atural gas could be treated equally with other fuels in the bills being debated in Congress.”

My hope is that as legislation on climate change or energy is considered, Senators will read the Deloitte report and embrace all opportunities—including underutilized, domestic and low-carbon natural gas—to reach our environment goals. One of the greatest benefits from such a shift could be on the world stage. By embracing all clean options to reach our energy and environmental goals, we’ll not only be setting a clear course for the United States, but providing a solid foundational plan for the world as well.

It’s highly unlikely that many Senators, particularly moderates from energy intensive industrial states, are going to have an appetite for climate change legislation that centers around a cap and trade system. Indeed, many Democrat Senators have already openly voiced their concerns about a White House push for such legislation.
 


Unfortunately, nothing that the president or other leaders accomplished in Copenhagen promises meaningful international action when it comes to climate change. Instead, talk overwhelmed serious negotiations and it has become exceedingly clear that major emitters such as China and India have little interest in impairing their economic engines in the name of climate change. 



This is particularly important as critical new polling emerged. As president Obama was over in Copenhagen, a major international Gallup survey found that Americans by a large margin (75-10) want international solutions rather than go-it-alone strategies to combat climate change. So while Americans may want action, they do not want unilateral disarmament, which means that already-dimming chances of cap and trade legislation have become even less likely.



Perhaps most troublesome, economically sensible international alternatives to costly cap and trade exist but were not front and center. The president should abandon his push for cap and trade and instead turn to truly global solutions. Specifically, he should consider expanding the Asia Pacific Partnership on Development with its focus on economic growth and technology transfer to other major emitters.



The Senate should rightly veto any effort by the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act (CAA). While the it has been appropriately used to curb smog and pollution in the 1970s and acid rain in the 1990s, using it to combat greenhouse gases makes about as much sense as using a power drill to do brain surgery. The costs of compliance would be severe, particularly since technologies to capture and sequester carbon are not commercially available. Those sectors that fall victim to severe Clean Air Act regulations will have no choice but to pass along the costs of compliance to consumers or, if technologies were not available to abate emissions, shut down or move to other countries not subject to CAA type regulations. This will surely cripple an already distressed economy.



Not sure the National Journal permits such language, but we'll see.

It would be truly pathetic if a minority of the Senate gets away with blocking Congressional action on one of the biggest -- and most easily and profitably solved crises -- facing America.

Look at the headlines. The price of oil has doubled in the past twelve months. The price of solar cells continues to slump. Oil comes from places like Iran and Venezuela, hostile to our iinterests -- and the instability in oil producing regions continues to escalate. Al Qaeda's latest most vibrant center is right next to Saudi Arabia.

Economists worry about a jobless recovery. Every oil tanker that enters American ports is stealing jobs from American workers who could be producing clean energy here at home. More and more homes are falling into foreclosure -- and more and more Americans can't pay their utility bills. We could, if the Senate would act, invest in upgrading the energy performance of millions of homes, bringing costs down to a level their owners can afford, and cutting pollution and carbon waste in half.

Green manufacturing is soaring in China far faster than in the US. Why? Because that's where the bigger market for green energy has emerged. if we want to lead the 21st century world economy, we have to invest in 21st century clean energy solutions.

We have before the US Senate a bill that could slash oil imports, generate millions of new jobs, save millions of homes and put the US back in charge of its energy future while cutting carbon waste and greenhouse pollution by putting our economy back to work.

Everyone knows that a majority of the Senate favors such a bill, and it has already passed the House.

So what is happening? Is the Senate preparing to deliberate, to vote, to amend, such legislation? No. Instead, it is preparing to have a vote on an amendment to cut the heart out of the Clean Air Act and its mandate that all sources of pollution, including carbon pollution, should be cleaned up. Senator Murkowski will offer an amendment to the Debt Ceiling bill to do this. Other Senators will not be allowed to offer their own amendments. Senator Murkowski will claim that she wants to gut the Clean Air Act so that Congress can pass more comprehensive climate and energy legislation. But she, and her colleagues, will not permit the Senate even to take up and deliberate on such legislation.

This is one of the most outrageous acts of bait and switch American politics has seen in a long time. Senators who won't vote shouldn't get paid.

I believe the odds are good that the Senate will pass a clean energy and climate bill this year because more and more Americans understand it will make our economy stronger. We simply can't put off the job of getting our people back to work any longer.

Many of our leaders understand this. President Obama has repeatedly stated his commitment to a clean energy and climate bill. Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid has repeatedly stated his commitment to it. And the House of Representatives already passed a similar bill back in June.

These lawmakers are responding to the business executives, labor unions, religious leaders, veterans, and other Americans who say our country needs the economic jumpstart that clean energy investment will provide. Many Senators realize that making buildings more efficient and manufacturing cleaner cars will generate real job opportunities in their home states.

On top of this support, the agreement reached in Copenhagen cleared a few hurdles out of the way of Senate action.

The Copenhagen Accord was adopted with dissent from just five countries out of 193 participants. The United States, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Japan, Mexico and 181 other countries have pledged to take real action to reduce carbon emissions.

That's historic. It means Americans aren't being asked to act alone. That means something in the U.S. Senate.

At Obama's insistence, the agreement also provides for each country to report on its progress every two years. Those reports can be independently analyzed and reviewed, so we'll know when countries keep their promises. That matters, too, for every U.S. Senator.

More important, however, are the jobs to be created - nearly two million of them, a University of California study shows - through legislation that sets this country on the path to a clean and sustainable energy future. Perhaps that matters most of all to Senators eager to address Americans’ number one concern: the economy.

Still, getting the bill to Obama’s desk this year will be no easy task. It will require a tremendous amount of work to keep the bill in the spotlight and maintain its environmental performance as it moves through the legislative process. The bill's many supporters are already mobilizing for a tough battle.

Yet make no mistake: the time to pass this bill is now. Neither our planet nor our economy can afford delay.

With Congress still out of session, it is far too early to rule out any action on climate and/or energy legislation this year. We know it is going to be a difficult push, particularly after Congress deals with health care, but a lot can change in a short amount of time. Just six days into the new year and we’ve seen two prominent Senate Democrats announce their retirements. It remains to be seen how Sens. Byron Dorgan and Christopher Dodd will vote given their pending departures, but it demonstrates how fluid the situation is.

From our perspective, we believe the Senate should continue work on the climate legislation passed by the Environment and Public Works Committee. The electric utility industry is in need of direction, and longer we wait, the more uncertainty the industry, their regulators, and consumers will face. No one is served by the status quo. Moreover, although the Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward, congressional action designed to address carbon emissions is a far better solution to the climate challenge.

That said, the Kerry-Boxer bill as passed by the EPW Committee needs to be amended. It contains a number of provisions we believe will help consumers during the transition to a carbon-constrained economy. The allocation of free emission allowances within the electricity sector to regulated Local Distribution Companies gives consumers an opportunity to benefit from any proceeds those allowances may bring. But we are hopeful that the Senate will amend the bill to give State commissions more flexibility in disbursing allowance proceeds, as the current legislation greatly complicates the ability of State regulators to use allowance proceeds for advancing energy efficiency or other clean energy programs.

Congress needs to recognize and support the activities at the State level rather than impose limitations. Indeed, all the activity in the U.S. on clean energy and energy efficiency has come from the States. By loosening the restrictions in the leading climate bills, Congress can guarantee more innovative work.

Climate protection legislation can pass in the US Senate this year, but the debate must be fought outside the beltway on conservative talk radio. Advocates for climate protection have failed to challenge the talking heads who have framed the issue for tens of millions of listeners.

The following rehtorical question and answer needs to be repeated over and over again on conservative talk radio stations:

Is it conservative to support legislation that spurs innovation and new technology; attracts billions of dollars of investment in private enterprises; creates tens of thousands of new, high paying jobs; responds to our top military minds to strengthen national security; increases exports and makes the dollar stronger; improves our trade deficit; secures energy to grow our nation; supports the many faith organizations in the country working to care for God's creation; utilizes a strategy developed by Ronald Reagan's administration; doesn't raise taxes one dime; and lets the free market decide how to best implement the policy?

Of course it is. Call your Senators and tell them to vote "yes" on cap and trade. That's what Reagan would do.

The fallout from Copenhagen has been disabling for global efforts to mitigate climate change. There is no endgame in sight or strategy to get there, except to keep meeting.

COP 15 revealed that the gaps in positions between the major parties -- the US, the EU and China and India and the developing countries -- have not narrowed. There are fundamental differences over who should reduce emissions, by how much and by when. If anything, these fissures have widened. Over a decade ago, the Clinton Administration participated in the negotiation of the UN treaty at Kyoto and signed it. Yet, the current White House says it will not support another Kyoto Protocol.

Failure to take the economic impact of proposals into account is one of the fundamental flaws in the negotiating process. It is a key reason why after 20 years of negotiations, there is very little to show. And the climate policy debate currently taking place in the US Congress seems to be suffering the same fate.

China, India and the rest of the developing world made crystal clear at Copenhagen that they will not accept that developing countries should cut emissions. They insist industrialized economies (the US and the EU) carry the burden of all cuts. Given that within a few years, developing countries will generate half the world’s emissions, this would be economically ruinous for the US and Europe.

The cap and trade system at the heart both the House and Senate bills would saddle Americans with severe economic consequences. Just consider that the E.U. carbon trading market has experienced volatile price swings, widespread incidence of fraud and abuse, and the development of securitized financial products (similar to the ones which contributed to the recent mortgage crisis).

Faced with struggling domestic industries, increasing numbers of out-of-work constituents, and looming midterm elections, US lawmakers -- particularly those who want to stay in office -- will pull their support of any policy that threatens to add to the existing economic strain.

Unless policymakers -- both locally and globally -- adopt a more practicable, economically affordable, and effective approach, the process to address climate change will assuredly fail.

Despite speculation from a few Beltway pundits, recent events suggest that there is momentum for the passage of a comprehensive clean energy and global warming legislation in 2010. Senator Lindsay Graham’s (R-SC) commitment to work with Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to craft legislation is a significant political breakthrough. Senator Graham voted against earlier global warming bills, including those authored by his friend Senator John McCain (R-AZ). Recently, Senator Graham recognized that reducing carbon pollution by putting a price on it would

“allow alternative energy sources to become more economically viable resulting in a cleaner environment. It is in our own national security interests to achieve energy independence and curb our pollution problem.”

The Copenhagen Accord, while far from perfect, also sets the stage for Senate action in 2010. President Obama’s leadership led to China and India’s first ever agreements to reduce their pollution rates. The accord also includes a compromise between the United States and China to verify pollution reductions according to rigorous and transparent guidelines depending on the source of financing for the reductions. All reductions are subject to “international consultation and analysis.” These agreements should address the concern that the United State will reduce its pollution while these and other developing countries do little to reduce their emissions.

The public continues to support action to reduce global warming pollution despite the worst economy in 70 years, the brouhaha over emails stolen from climate scientists, and $100 million in scare mongering ads by big oil and other special interests. The Washington Post-ABC News poll released the week of December 14^th showed that by more than 2-1 Americans want to “regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming.” The Post poll found that three of five voters would support reductions in greenhouse gas pollution even it “raised your monthly expenses by 10 dollars a month.” And 55 percent would still support reductions if it “raised your monthly energy expenses by 25 dollars a month.” The Associated Press-Stanford University poll found similar results.

The mainstream media has written the obituary for comprehensive clean energy legislation at every step of the process. Such nay saying occurred after House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-CA) and House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming introduced the American Clean Energy and Security Act, before the House Energy Committee passed the bill, and before the full House of Representatives passed it in June. Chair Waxman noted that "On every issue that I've worked on this year, people have said it can't happen and it's dead for the year.” Claims about the death of the Senate global warming bill are also greatly exaggerated. The Senate is on track for a spring debate and passage of legislation to create jobs, increase American energy independence and cut pollution.

Reflecting on the Good Friday peace accord he helped negotiate in Ireland, George Mitchell once observed, "We had seven hundred days of failure and one day of success."

Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman provide a non-partisan leadership team that has a legitimate chance of overcoming the oil industry's efforts to divide and conquer Congress. Nobody knows for certain whether they will succeed, but that day of success is clearly closer than ever.

A clean energy bill has passed the House. The President showed his determination and leadership at the Copenhagen deals where he put together a deal that brings China and India for the first time into a framework of transparent global commitments to tackle emissions. The Accord was signed by 188 of the 193 countries, including all the major economies, in attendance. Only a handful of nations (like Venezuela, Sudan and Cuba) declined to sign. The "let's-wait-for-China" excuse, which was never very compelling but nevertheless is often repeated on the Hill, is now off the table. Majority Leader Harry Reid was clear in his resolve, stating upon the conclusion of the Copenhagen Accord: "Today’s developments strengthen our resolve to pass comprehensive clean energy legislation this spring that creates jobs, reduces pollution and improves our energy independence.”

Most importantly, we have a major ally on our side that the inside-the-Beltway Conventional Wisdom continues to overlook – the American people. As a December poll released by the National Wildlife Federation showed, 82% of voters support the U.S. government increasing investment in clean energy sources. That includes 80% of independents.

And as for the upcoming Senate attempt to obstruct the Clean Air Act in order to protect polluters, it's really not surprising that polluters with billions of profits at stake continue to do everything they can with their allies in Congress to obstruct progress. But Senators would be wise to take note that two out of every three voters support limits on carbon pollution, including 67% of independents.

After years of inaction on climate change, does the Senate really want to start the new decade with a vote to block the Clean Air Act and further delay efforts to reduce tailpipe and smokestack pollution? I doubt it.

The wind industry strongly supports comprehensive energy and climate legislation that includes limits on greenhouse gas emissions and aggressive policies with concrete targets to promote more use of renewable energy, such as a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES). Hard targets for renewables are a proven job creator both in the US and around the world, in addition to avoiding emissions and increasing America’s energy security. These are top priorities for the United States and should be addressed in 2010, despite the political difficulties. Members of our industry are hopeful that members of Congress will finish the legislative task they began last year, when a comprehensive bill passed the House and key energy provisions, including an RES, were approved by the Senate Energy Committee. We also urge the Obama Administration to continue to push for a comprehensive bill as part of its promise to reform energy and environmental policy while also promoting long-term economic growth. Senators Graham, Lieberman and Kerry deserve special commendation for seeking to move beyond partisan gridlock toward a climate solution.

The breathlessness with which some beltway pundits have rushed to pronounce a climate bill dead is hardly newsworthy. Since before the House Energy & Commerce Committee began debating the American Clean Energy & Security Act, naysayers have predicted the demise of global warming legislation. And there’s little doubt that more stories will get published and posted online before the Senate takes action.

The fact is that no one has ever claimed passing comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation would be easy. After all, corporate polluters and other powerful special interests have billions in corporate profits at stake, which is why they’ve launched an unprecedented misinformation campaign to block energy reform. But after a decade of dead-end energy policies, doing nothing is not an option in 2010.

Make no mistake, momentum towards comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation continues to build. Based on all that has been accomplished in the past year, we’re very optimistic about its chances this year. The American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives last June with bipartisan support, marking the first time a mandatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions standard has passed either chamber of Congress. The Senate process of drafting a climate and energy bill is currently underway, lead by a tripartisan team of Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman. The White House has committed to be actively involved in these legislative discussions and most recently exhibited leadership on a global stage in Copenhagen as nations worked towards an international climate agreement. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid concluded that the outcome of the Copenhagen climate talks in December would add further momentum to Senate progress, stating that the “developments strengthen our resolve to pass comprehensive clean energy legislation this spring that creates jobs, reduces pollution and improves our energy independence.”

Recent polling proves there is strong voter support for concrete legislation that creates jobs, reduces carbon pollution and increases energy independence. In a recent Washington Post poll, nearly two-thirds of those polled think the federal government should regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming. And a nationwide CNN poll showed that six in ten Americans support a "cap and trade" proposal to cut pollution.

A new year doesn’t necessarily bring new concerns. Americans continue to worry about jobs and the state of the economy. But 2010 does bring new opportunities to take back control of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet. It can be done. By passing comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation we can transition our nation to a new economy that will create jobs, improve our national security and international competitiveness, and protect the planet for future generations.

The landscape for Senate discussion and eventual action on the climate is changing in important ways that are likely to expand the terms of public debate. The first critical shift is the grudging recognition in the White House and across the Senate that cap-and-trade has no better prospect of securing 60 votes this year than it has in the past, when it’s failed to come anywhere close. The second crucial change is new pressures building to pass something to preempt direct EPA regulation. The recent EPA endangerment finding opened a new front in the battle over the climate, one set to expand later this year under a series of upcoming regulations in other areas that could set the terms for comprehensive EPA regulation of greenhouse gases. GOP proposals to block EPA direct regulation are rhetorical exercises at best, with less chance of ever passing the Senate than cap-and-trade -- much less also passing the House and then avoiding a presidential veto. Not only was the EPA finding effectively mandated by a recent Supreme Court ruling on the Clean Air Act; the credible prospect of direct regulation is already recognized as the only threat powerful enough and credible enough to move climate-phobic politicians and companies to seriously consider a better approach. And if cap-and-trade can’t attract the votes, that suggests we’ll hear more this year about a revenue-neutral, carbon-based tax. Two early signs are a new proposal from Maria Cantwell that’s a hybrid of a carbon tax and cap-and-trade, and recent favorable comments from Jeff Bingaman, the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Tennessee Republican Senator Bob Corker. Carbon taxes are also an approach that’s sharply cut emissions in Scandinavia, one that the EU is actively exploring following the disappointments of its cap-and-trade-based European Trading Scheme, and it’s even the plan that Al Gore has long favored. A real public discussion and debate about a carbon tax, tied to offsetting cuts in payroll or other taxes, could be the best news for the climate in a very long time.

The prospects for getting 60 votes for cap and trade legislation were never bright. Now, the unseemly spectacle of vote buying that was needed to produce 60 votes for health care legislation makes those prospects dimmer. Moderate Senators have no doubt been feeling the full heat of public anger over what it sees as out of control politics. Going forward, those moderate senators may follow the counsel of the late Senator Dirksen who once said that he saw the light when he felt the heat.

Public support for cap and trade was fading before the health care vote. Now like the horizon it will recede further when the Senate returns from its Christmas recess, especially as the nation experiences a very cold winter.

The economy continues to struggle and it is less than certain that a recovery is underway. If it is, it is a weak one. Poll after poll makes clear that the public’s highest priorities are economic growth and job creation. Senators, especially those who want to return to the Senate next year, ought to focus on actions that will bring down unemployment and breathe life into the economy. Given the Senate’s behavior last year, that might represent a triumph of hope over experience.

Cap and trade would impose hundreds of billions of dollars of unnecessary costs on a weak economy, even if their effect was several years in the future. That would create greater economic uncertainty at a time when what is needed are incentives and a more certain environment for investment, job creation, and public spending.

As the Senate debates the various cap and trade proposals that are being floated, it will become ever more clear that the consequences will enrich traders and rent seeking businesses, further increase the heavy hand of regulation with the burdens and consequences of higher energy costs being borne by the public. Investments by energy intensive industries with good paying jobs will seek more friendly economic environments and that will mean fewer jobs created here. Cap and trade in any form is simply the worst way to deal with greenhouse gas emissions and that also will become ever more clear.

What should happen in 2010 is that the Senate should engage in a real and more robust debate about climate change—both the extent of human influence and cost-effective actions to address it.

There are a number of actions that Congress can take that would both help the economy and slow the growth of greenhouse gas emission independent of whether climate change is seen as a serious or trivial problem. Those include incentives for developing new energy technologies, exporting technologies to developing countries, investing in nuclear power, bringing to market the full potential of increased natural gas reserves, and for producing the domestic energy that is needed to meet the needs of a growing population and a healthy economy.

Good energy and economic policy would be good climate policy.

As Thoreau said, "simplify, simplify." I am hopeful the Senate will act in 2010, but it needs to back off 1000 page bills with cap and trade schemes that only Wall Street and wonks understand. Building off the success of the Clean Air Act, the Senate should seek to create science-based greenhouse pollutant standards. The wild cards in the Senate are not Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Lindsey Graham (S-SC), who appear determined to lead the far right overreaching against EPA's sensible (and Supreme Court mandated) endangerment finding, but Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) who have introduced a climate bill that, while imperfect and in need of improvement, is straight forward and a potential "game changer." The challenge, of course, is that so many insiders are so blindly bought into "cap and trade" that any deviation from this mantra will elicit howls of outrage. Whatever system Congress creates, however (and maybe it will be a slimmed down cap and trade, or maybe cap and dividend), absolutely must tangibly and fairly reduce harmful greenhouse pollutants. Anything else is a sham and the electorate will know it.