The suggestion about Exxon/Mobile is a good one, I stopped using them last year and every person who stops flushing their disposable income down at Exxon/Mobile (and does it at another vendor) is step towards forcing them to change their behavior (eventually).

What exactly do we need more R’s for? To allow Sen. Reid to stroke his own ego as a “bipartisan leader?” Or to keep him from actually having to lead? Come one man, either all 60 Democrats line up and pass this one, or they don’t. The whole reason Americans sent them to the Hill in the majority in the first place is that we’re . . . upset . . . at the overwhelming alck of accomplishment that split part rule gave us. If Blue Dogs want to filibuster the climate bill because they think it helps them politically, then we should politely inviet them to switch Parties and be don ewith it.

Sorry sir, but to pander to a politicl party that has nearly run our nation into the ground just to keep from having to deal with the elephants (pun very intended) in your own house is banal and immature.

Man, how I long for the days when Democrats had a pair, and used them!

[JR: Gonna need some R's for the final bill, so I'm not sure this is the best path.]

Let’s try to understand what the Republicans are after with their boycott.

By delaying U.S. Senate action until after Copenhagen, they apparently want to avoid any substantial agreement in Copenhagen, so that they can continue to argue that U.S. action by itself will be ineffective and costly.

Coming from the party of Newt Gingrich, who criticized Harry Reid for not being a good enough liar, it makes some sense, perhaps. This is a negotiating position, and it’s all about trying to protect the profitability of U.S. fossil fuel industries, I guess.

Or maybe there is more to this tactic.

Scott Borgerson, of the Council on Foreign Relations, is a David Rockefeller visiting fellow at the CFR think tank, meaning he’s on the payroll. The Council on Foreign Relations, for decades, has been dominated by the Rockefellers, descendants of the John D. Rockefeller Standard Oil Monopoly. David Rockefeller, for example, was the Chairman of the CFR for decades. Borgerson’s output, in the New York Times for example and in testimony before both the House and the Senate, suggests that the CFR (the foreign policy voice of Big Oil, IMO) wants the Arctic to melt in the summer, so that they can prospect for oil under the Arctic ice. They also apparently want the U.S. to build a fleet of nuclear icebreaker ships, apparently to break the ice and clear a navigable path through the pack ice for oil tankers carrying Arctic crude:

http://www.cfr.org/ publication/ 15638/ arctic_meltdown.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F13363%2F

(CFR website, registration required, go to page 2)

Ironically, the great melt is likely to yield more of the very commodities that precipitated it: fossil fuels. As oil prices exceed $100 a barrel, geologists are scrambling to determine exactly how much oil and gas lies beneath the melting icecap. More is known about the surface of Mars than about the Arctic Ocean’s deep, but early returns indicate that the Arctic could hold the last remaining undiscovered hydrocarbon resources on earth. The U.S. Geological Survey and the Norwegian company StatoilHydro estimate that the Arctic holds as much as one-quarter of the world’s remaining undiscovered oil and gas deposits. Some Arctic wildcatters believe this estimate could increase substantially as more is learned about the region’s geology. The Arctic Ocean’s long, outstretched continental shelf is another indication of the potential for commercially accessible offshore oil and gas resources.

The climate is a complex chaotic system, which appears to be approaching or that has reached a bifurcation point. It may be that our financial elites want to delay effective action long enough for the climate to irreversibly pass this bifurcation point.

It may be that the temptation of this ten trillion dollars or so in Arctic oil and additional trillions of dollars worth of methane from methane hydrates is too much for our financial elites, and they are trying to force the earth’s climate into a state in which the Arctic is ice free in the summer, in order to go after those Arctic resources.

This is a huge risk, and one that I believe could well be catastrophic for future generations.

I also don’t recall voting for this policy.

I don’t think we can achieve this seasonally ice free Arctic on any human time scale without setting off a methane catastrophe.