[JR: Normally, I'd delete this. But occasionally it's useful to see.]

We still need a good deal of public relations work, especially in southern states which are incredibly stubborn even to the extent of self destruction (nothing new of course: see today’s article on the unhealthiest states in the US– http://news.yahoo.com/ s/ nm/ 20081204/ us_nm/ us_rankings_usa what a shock that the top ten are LA, MS, SC, TN, TX, FL, OK, AS, NV, and GA). How that PR work gets done in the South is an important question, one that I can’t claim to know the answer to. The campaign has to be specifically geared to the southern states to be effective. Senators like Snowe, Collins and Spectre may well be susceptible to pressure, though, to partially offset the Red State Democrats.

I don’t know about “ruin the economy” but it will certainly raise energy prices unless the cap is so high that it has no effect on emissions.

—-
Jim Bullis: “I continue to look for hour by hour electricity production data for US or California power plants without successs.”

For California: http://www.caiso.com/outlook/outlook.html

However, to get climate progress we should recognize what we are up against in getting a ratified treaty. A rule of combative situations such as this is “Give the devil his due.” And it is not just Bush that is the devil in this. The mostly level headed Economist magazine suggested that serious measures to combat CO2 might be a “fools errand” since our actions look to be dwarfed by actions of China and India, where they are determined to be part of the industrialized world that we established as an example. When Senators actually see a treaty and seriously do the cost analysis, and then consider the potential ineffectiveness of the actions, I can see that it might be very hard to get the needed votes.

However, there might be some constructive progress possible if the national security issue is brought into the debate. Energy independence is the point of view that can partly coincide with the goal of reducing CO2.

The stumbling point is that we can become energy independent quite easily by simply converting to electric powered transportation where the immediate and affordable fuel to make the electricity will be coal. We can read the GM plan to do exactly this at http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/PDF/presentation-sm.pdf . Though coal is worse than petroleum, btu for btu, there are some efficiency gains that will make us come out about even on CO2 as a result of this conversion.

So how do we get climate progress out of this. There is obviously something more that has to be in the plan that would have to accompany ratification. I have to agree with the prudent thinkers who would not sign a treaty on the basis of only trust that real solutions would be forthcoming.

It might be possible to get some kinds of mandates in this plan, but if they involve huge costs the whole thing will bog down again.

So the task seems to be to find solutions and put forward technical descriptions and analyses and financial analyses. This analysis has to be with the status quo in the background, which involves coal as the basic fuel source. Where we can show the costs and benefits to compete with coal, we have something to go on. I insist that rebates and such have no place in the discussion, since they are only cost shifting stratagems that are meaningless on the large scale that we are dealing with here. In fact, they get in the way of rational decision making.

We simply can not seem to get real about this. I continue to look for hour by hour electricity production data for US or California power plants without successs.

As much as I love, regularly check, and learn from this page, I believe what you have written in this post is both incorrect and irresponsible. These negotiations are far from dead and critical to global emissions reductions.

First, the treaty does not, as you seem to imply, have to garner 67 votes in the next year. It is quite conceivable that this treaty will still be available for ratification one year after Copenhagen. That is, after the 2010 elections. Think back two years and you’ll agree that no one has a political crystal ball clear enough to know what the Senate composition will be by then.

Likewise, no one can estimate Obama’s future political power. If he makes energy and climate central issues, it might be political suicide in some states to obstruct the President’s most-pressed for programs. Even world opinion on this issue might start to matter more to Americans rediscovering an international role other than military.

Most importantly, Copenhagen need not result in a demand for national cap and trade legislation. The treaty will likely provide wide latitude to countries as to the manner they chose to implement treaty requirements. A nation must only meet a national cap after four year in Kyoto. How they get there is their business.

Leading to further unpredictability is the actual state of the climate system two years from now. If we get the US equivalent of a Europe ‘98 heat wave, for example, there is no telling where public opinion will be.

Finally, as the climate system continues to degenerate, other nations may take action against climate non-actors. My understanding of recent WTO rulings (see, for example, Brazil-Tyres) leads me to believe that a system of climate tariffs imposed against Copenhagen non-signatories would pass muster with the WTO Appellate Body. If the EU (or all Copenhagen signatories as a bloc) starts imposing tariffs on non-signatories equivalent to the cost savings of using dirty energy (or even threatens such in the next year), US businesses may force Republicans to move on climate issues.

So while you are pretty good at looking to the future and helping your readers understand what is coming. On this issue, you have gotten a bit ahead of yourself. Because so much is riding on an international agreement, I hope you reconsider before you create the very energy that itself helps make a treaty impossible.