Arlen Specter is happy to sign letters telling the President to do more about global warming, but when he's given to cast the deciding vote on Exxon versus renewable energy, he protects oil at the cost of the planet.

Yesterday Arlen Specter signed a Congressional letter to the President criticizing the U.S. Bali delegation for its blind intransigence to solving global warming:

The clear implication is that the United States will refuse to agree to any language putting the United States on an established path toward scientifically-based emission limits. . . We write to express our strong disagreement with these positions and to urge you to direct the U.S. negotiating team to work together with other countries to complete a roadmap with a clear objective sufficient to combat global warming. The United States must adopt negotiating positions at the Bali Conference of the Parties that are designed to propel further progress - not fuel additional delay.

This morning he cast the deciding vote against cloture on the energy bill to preserve billions of subsidies for Big Oil and to kill renewable energy funding and research, just what Bush demanded.

Friends of the Earth:

Friends of the Earth Action President Brent Blackwelder released the following statement in response to reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid plans to further weaken the energy bill after failing to achieve cloture on an already-weakened version of the bill earlier today:

"It's clear that Democratic capitulation isn't limited to Iraq. When the Republican leadership and the polluter lobby have blocked important legislation, Senate Democrats have been all too willing to move in their direction. The result is that the two most positive provisions of the energy bill--a clean energy mandate and a tax package reining in handouts for fossil fuels and promoting clean energy--are being removed while detrimental provisions, such as a radical five-fold increase in unsustainable biofuel use, remain.

"This is the wrong approach. Instead of capitulating, the Senate Democrats should show some backbone. If Republicans want to block progress on clean energy and global warming, they should be forced to mount a real filibuster--for weeks if necessary. If President Bush and Republican senators persist in their obstruction, Democrats should pull the energy bill from the floor and make it an issue at the ballot box instead. Let's be clear. What the Republicans are doing here is morally repugnant. They are jeopardizing our children's future in order to help corporate polluters make more money. The American people have signaled that they want a different direction, and Democrats should not yield to this obstruction.

"The basic truth is that our system of energy production and consumption is wholly unsustainable, and dramatic changes are needed or we risk a systemic collapse. Unfortunately, we are not yet getting the bold leadership from the Senate that is required to bring about these changes."

(I added the bolding.)

The speech is certainly noble, but the prize is Nobel.

I hate innumeracy.

* Step It Up: get your congresspeople to call for progressive action on climate change on November 3.

* Request a presentation of Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" slideshow given by one of the people trained by his group.

Sorry -- I'm only semi-paying attention to the discussion.

Could you give us a little background for those of us who aren't rules committee wonks what you mean by  open and closed rules mean?

Funny how they miss the first increase in the minimum wage in years.

It's fun seeing other commenters' hostility to slowing down for a moment and being forced to think and listen.

My favorite thing about this New York Times Magazine issue on poverty was looking at the ads -- all geared not just to the wealthy, but to the super-wealthy. Luxury condominiums in New York City and Las Vegas; investment banks for multimillionaires; etc.

The greatest indictment of the dissolution of America's middle class was to be found in the advertisements, not the articles.

Of course, the best case scenario is unlikely.  But one thing that could really help create the economic incentive for it is a comprehensive cap (or tax) on carbon, which Obama (and all the Democrats) supports.  Another thing about that cap, it will apply to CTL production so if it does pollute more, they'll have to pay through the nose for it and frankly, the whole enterprise will die if they can't make it clean.

This is the key element. I'd feel much better if we get cap and trade in place before we subsidize another dirty energy industry.

Yes.

Obama is a co-sponsor of S. 309, the strong Boxer-Sanders Safe Climate Act.

Saying "Obama's climate plan is nonsense" is not fair or accurate. It's fair to say that CTL without cap-and-trade would be terrible. But let's try to be honest about such a serious issue.

Huh? "the progressive, political blogosphere skews toward the following demographics: 85-90% white, 60-65% male, very high income ($75-$80K average income), and the highly educated (40-50% advanced degrees, and 80-85% four year degrees)"