Here is an interactive map of yes and no votes by state.

http://digg.com/ environment/ Geography_of_House_Vote_on_Waxman_Markey_interactive_map

Here is some analysis of this situation.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ 2009/ 06/ cap-and-trade-state-by-state.html#comments

He should then announce that the current suite of “solutions” in Waxman-Markey is inadequate for the science. Specifically, Waxman Markey sets extremely weak goals (a small fraction of what scientists say is needed), allows all reductions until 2026 to be met with unverifiable “carbon offsets,” allows new coal-fired power plants without sequestration, and by robs EPA of its power to regulate greenhouse gases from the largest sources.
He should point out that the give aways to fossil fuel and carbon offset investor interests and the weakness of the bill will undermine our ability enact better legislation in the future and to lead internationally.

The President should also announce that what we need is a straightforward and enforceable way of putting a price on fossil fuels (where they enter the economy and can actually be reliably measured) that will gradually, but inexorably raise the price of fossil fuel energy above the price of the clean energy alternatives that we current have available (over 10 to 15 years). The substantial majority of these funds can be placed in a Carbon Fees Trust Fund and returned per person to all adults (less for kids) in order to insure that energy remains affordable during the transition. For a more complete description of this alternative, please see our discussion paper at http://www.carbonfees.org/ home/ Cap-and-TradeVsCarbonFees.pdf.

One more suggestion to your readers, please don’t just comment here, please write to the President and to your senators about your concerns about Waxman-Markey. I have, but many more voices are needed in order for us to have an impact.

1) Many supporters of ACES have argued “this is the best we can get given the circumstances” or that this bill “is a beginning.” If so, the central question for community organizers is: what is the next step? How will we obtain more meaningful and effective action on energy policy and climate change if we accept that these are the “circumstances”? When or how will we be able to improve the circumstances that are produced by this incomplete Act?

[JR: Well, given that with the stimulus and the fuel economy deal, president Obama has in his first few months done more than every previous president combined on clean energy and climate, I think one can imagine many, many future actions -- starting with the aggressive deployment of a smart, clean energy grid.]

2) Given that the fossil-fuel industry is unwilling to agree to reduce carbon any further than the current legislation, and given that many environmental groups have acquiesced to the industry’s terms in the name of “getting something done”, what is the strategy for getting an energy bill that will reduce carbon enough to actually slow global warming? When will that bill happen? Will it be when the Democrats control Congress, the Senate, and the Presidency? (Hint: they already do.)

[JR: That's what this bill does -- in so far as any bill passed by the United States can. Try reading the blog posts here before blurting stuff out.]

3) Since President Obama is likely to sign the bill with great fanfare, what will the public take away from this? Will they see it as a “win”–that the problem is solved? If so, what will that mean for pushing for the needed steps later? How will the public be mobilized to push their Representatives when the official and media message is that this is “landmark” legislation?

[JR: Nice try. You can't posit a hypothetical and then use that to prove something. I spoke to one Senator who said that he expects to see an energy bill every year now.]

4) If this bill is signed, coal’s role in America’s energy mix will be set for the next two decades. What strategies can victims of the coal industry use to convince Washington that the industry is still undertaking destructive and hazardous mining methods such as longwall mining and mountaintop removal coal mining?

[JR: This bill will take us off on coal faster than one could hardly have imagined just two years ago. Again, try reading the blog posts here.]

5) Why are taxpayers about to ‘invest’ billions in the carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) of coal if Wall Street has taken a pass?

[JR: First off, CCS can be used for more than just coal and ultimately I expect that it will be. Second, CCS is not economical until carbon has a price, so that would be the short answer to your question.]

6) If our energy policy is so predicated on the workability of CCS and the inevitability of reliance on coal, what happens if CCS is not workable, or workable in time? Where are the sequestration sites? What are the estimates for storage capacity? What happens to local communities if there is an unexpected slow or sudden large release of CO2? Do the communities know the potential risk they are taking? Why are we giving billions of dollars to an industry without answers to these fundamental questions?

[JR: Your first part of you question is utterly false -- "our energy policy is so predicated on the workability of CCS -- so the rest of the quetions make no sense. Again, if you actually read this blog you wouldn't have wasted people's time with this question.]

7) If mountaintop removal and the serious impact on water resources in the West are factored in, what is the true cost of coal for our future?

[JR: Coal must be phased out, which is what this bill does.]

Why are we eliminating the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon as a pollutant like they do any other pollutant? If we do this, when will Congress be willing to revisit regulation guidelines on carbon? What are the levers for change without the regulatory authority of the EPA?

[JR: EPA doesn't have authority to regulate carbon like they do "any other pollutant." They are in the process of developing the authority to do limited regulation on CO2, mostly for new sources.]

9) What is the execution plan for the regulation of the cap and trade provisions of the bill? How can we ask Americans to accept a new “market” without a clear regulatory process, especially after the lack of a clear regulatory process just caused the collapse of our financial sector?

[JR: A non sequitor. The bill lays all that out.]

10) Why are we not meeting the necessary reductions in carbon as put forth by science?

[JR: Uhh, typically, the status quo has the upper hand because it has tens of billions of dollars from, in this case, the dirty polluting industries to sell its message and its political might. There has been a two decade long disinformation campaign, which has not been well responded to by progressives or scientists. Also, the status quo media doesn't report the climate story accurately, leaving the public in uninformed. That's 3 reasons right off the top.]

These questions must be answered. The stakes are too high. The American public deserves a bill that represents their long-term energy, economic, and security interests. We deserve better than a bill created by the conversation Washington insiders have amongst themselves. We deserve leadership, not the lowest common denominator. We voted overwhelmingly for these things in 2006 and this bill does not represent that intention.

These aren’t minor uncertainties of a big bill, or things that can be “hammered out later.” In the view of most participants in CLEAN these are fundamental questions that point to deep underlying flaws with the legislation. Flaws that will lead to inevitable failures with serious, if not devastating, human consequences.

[JR: Again, questions are fine. Suggestions to vote "no" on the bill need to be accompanied by a "Plan B" that leads to superior outcomes or else you are just wasting everyone's time.]

Anyway they list 35 yes voters, 10 probably yes voters, and 23 “fence-sitters”, 5 of which would have to vote yes assuming all the others did.

The fence-sitters include the following:

Lamar Alexander (Tenn.): Now in Senate Republican leadership. Has stuck to his guns on need for power plant-only climate legislation.
Mark Begich (Alaska): In his winning 2008 Senate campaign, supported 80 percent cuts by mid-century. But an Alaskan senator — Democrat or Republican — is still no sure thing on climate legislation.
Sherrod Brown * (Ohio): Progressive record on climate while in the House. Now pushing to save jobs in economically-troubled Ohio. A big advocate of “green” economy. Voted against cloture on 2008 climate bill.
Kent Conrad * (N.D.): Concerned about bill’s costs. Wants more funding for CO2 sequestration technology, alt fuels. Signed letter questioning 2008 Senate climate bill.
Bob Corker (Tenn.): Most vocal Senate Republican when it comes to costs of climate bill. Supports a cap-and-trade measure or carbon tax under which all of the funds raised get returned directly to the public.
Byron Dorgan * (N.D.): Like Conrad, concerned about bill’s costs and funding for CO2 capture. Also signed letter questioning 2008 Senate climate bill.
Lindsey Graham (S.C.): Wants nuclear provisions added. Often sides with McCain on climate issue.
Judd Gregg (N.H.): Voted in favor of the McCain-Lieberman bill in 2003 and 2005 but went against Lieberman-Warner in 2008, saying the price tag was too big. While Gregg opted against serving in Obama’s administration as secretary of Commerce, he may be seen as a possible GOP ally on global warming.
Tim Johnson (S.D.): Won re-election in 2008, so may be less concerned about climate legislation. But signed letter questioning 2008 Senate climate bill.
Mary Landrieu (La.): Complained last year that tight economy was no time to be debating climate legislation. Unclear how 2008 reelection changes her views.
Carl Levin * (Mich.): Concerned about home-state auto industry, opposes California’s bid to regulate greenhouse gases. Likely to be his top issue during negotiations.
Blanche Lincoln * (Ark.): Worked on cost-containment provisions during 2008 debate.
Richard Lugar (Ind.): Ranking member on Senate Foreign Relations gives him clear view of post-Kyoto dynamics. Unsure about transparency and enforcement of cap-and-trade system. Also wants to see greater roles for biofuels, global food production and adaptation.
Mel Martinez (Fla.): Retirement in 2010 raises questions about how much of a role he’ll play. Mentioned at end of 2008 Senate debate as possible GOP cosponsor of next climate bill, but so far shown no public interest.
John McCain (Ariz.): The 2008 Republican presidential nominee wants more nuclear power. Held out support for last year’s bill over this. Working again with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on legislation.
Claire McCaskill * (Mo.): Shown independence from Democratic leadership. Wants agricultural issues addressed in climate bill.
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska): Ranking member of Senate Energy Committee and past cosponsor of cap-and-trade with Bingaman and Specter. Has pushed for funding for Alaskan adaptation.
Mark Pryor * (Ark.): Raised alarm about moving climate legislation amid poor economy. Has focused in past on technology.
Jay Rockefeller * (W.Va.): Most important issue is funding for “clean coal” technology.
Arlen Specter (Pa.): Cosponsored cap-and-trade legislation in 2007 with Bingaman. Joined Senate EPW Committee to work on this year’s climate bill.
Debbie Stabenow * (Mich.): Wants more offsets in climate bill. Also seeking nationwide auto standard in response to California regulations.
Jon Tester (Mont.): Has stayed largely silent on climate issue. Montana politics may force him to be a bit more conservative as he nears 2012 reelection campaign.
Jim Webb * (Va.): Also been quiet on global warming.

When will it happen? Sooner than you think.