I read in Reuters today this headline: U.S. Senate not seen passing climate bill in 2010. And I think, what gives, guys? First you ignore Copenhagen and now you ignore Mexico City? What is the issue?

It is my assessment that we likely will not do climate change this year, but will do an energy bill instead," said U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan (D- ND).

Ah, so it's a change of plans, not a completely negligent and intentional sidelining of the issue of energy in our country. Got you. And that’s not another Republican talking about how global warming and climate change are myths and we shouldn’t be dealing with anything other than revitalizing the economy right now etc. etc.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has indicated in the past that the senate would take up legislation around climate change and cap and trade- it seems, though, that they are considering redefining that bill to something that everyone will agree on- like energy. (Well, not everyone, but certainly more than would agree on cap and trade).

I can only imagine an energy bill would have token money going to wind and solar projects, while lobbyists would divert a lot of money to crap initiatives like clean coal and probably focus on the faux-clean energy initiatives of the nuclear industry.

Dorgan makes a point, though, that the health care debate has been a heavy lift, and that it would be very difficult to move from where we are now to directly deal with something like cap and trade. To me that means he is not in favor of cap and trade, just by the inherent idea that it is going to be a difficult sell.

Dorgan sounds more in favor of legislation requiring that more of U.S energy be generated through renewable sources. That legislation would also expand offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, which I continue to see as a concession, a bargaining chip. What could possibly be the long-term advantage of digging for oil in the Gulf of Mexico? Is that a good idea beyond a few decades of cheap(er) oil? The answer is no.

But I do see Dorgan’s point that it would be significantly easier to pass than starting from scratch on the cap and trade bill. What is also true, though, is that the energy bill as it is does not do enough. I don’t know the specifics about how much is supposed to be spent on the proposed energy independence approach, but what I do know is that it’s not enough.

Thomas Friedman wrote a great op ed the other day where he said the best way for us to develop security and independence is to get moving OUT of other countries and let them resolve their own differences- like China and Taiwan have both done. I think that makes a lot of sense.

Like he says, take $100 billion and put it toward energy independence. I say also to make sure 2/3 or ¾ of that goes toward straight-up renewable and clean energy. If we are running on wind and sunlight nobody can ever raise the price or take it away and it never runs out, my friends.

Photo Credit: talkradionews (via Flickr under CCL)