That was like a punch in the gut that made me want to cry, but I appreciate Joe’s honesty. We need another hurricane Katrina or something….something to create a paradigm shift that will shock the mainstream enough to get its head out of the cement. Hardly anybody I know in real life even wants to talk about this stuff, it’s an issue that seems even more uncomfortable to talk about than religion for many people.

Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now! program covered a debate between NRDC and Public Citizen over the W-M bill. Needless to say there was no consensus as you can imagine. There was a point made that I wanted your input on. After getting out of the Energy and Commerce Subcomittee it has to go through six more before it can be voted on by the full house and reconciled with the Senater version of the bill. So does the bill stand the chance of getting better in the remaining six subcomittees because big oil and coal have spent their capital in Energy and Commerce or does it get worse or stay the same when it gets to the full house for a vote?

[JR: It probably gets a little worse around the edges in the House, but the bigger problem is the Senate, as you can tell from their wussy renewable energy standard.]

I think the danger is that Waxman-Markey passes, and although it is entirely inadequate, it becomes not the first step, but the last step the USA takes to reduce emissions.

The powers-that-be proclaim the problem “solved” by this “historic” bill, and then “serious U.S. action” is not off the table for “years”, but off the table forever.

I think you naild the headline — good start, won a battle, but we’re a long way from winning the war, even if Waxman Marky passes. A long way.

Still, cause for celebration.

Check out this video clip: http://www.gop.gov/ conference-call/ 09/ 05/ 21/ author-of-the-democrats

Disturbing!

You are aware of my much greater concerns about give-aways than you, about issues of social equity, the massive amount of resources dedicated to “clean coal”, the relative balance of subsidies to fossil fuel industry (direct/indirect, about $1.06 trillion) vs the resources for energy efficiency / renewable energy (about $140 billion), etc …

However, seriously, you consider there to be only two areas of serious concern?

You are not concerned about the weak(ened) RES, for example?

[JR: Adam, I have two of the leading experts explaining why most of the "give-aways" aren't a big deal -- indeed, why they help solve one of your other concerns, "social equity." The bill handles regional and social equity pretty well. I don't care about the big spending on clean coal. That is just money. Who cares? It is certainly well worth finding out if clean coal is practical and affordable -- so this just boil down to a discussion of money. That is a trivial issue compared to the 2020 target and the 2 billion offsets.

Again, you view the allocations to regulated utilities as a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry, whereas leading progressive experts on the subject have explained why it is not.]