When Waxman-Markey made it out of the House, I supported the bill. It isn't perfect -- isn't close to perfect. Honestly what eventually emerged from the House was such weak tea that it's unlikely to have any effect on either the course of global warming, or the structure of our energy infrastructure. I completely understand the position of those so disappointed that they feel obliged to refuse their support.

Still, it is at the very least a demonstration that we are willing to grab hold of what some of the richest interests in the country have spent million on million trying to turn into a "third rail." The same corporations that have wrecked towns, smashed unions, ruined landscapes, and made unbelievable fortunes doing it, managed to get people -- people who have suffered directly because of the policies of those corporations -- to march around carrying signs that conflated "cap and trade" with Nazism. Whether that's a measure of effective marketing, or of abject gullibility, it's still astounding. The same corporations that didn't stop with only passing along every cost increase directly to the consumer, but used disaster and conflict as an excuse to rack up profits unmatched by any industry, ever, in the history of the world, got senators and congressmen to scream that it was government limitations on these corporations that was the problem. The same corporations that abandoned US jobs and US communities to increase their operations in areas where they could ignore safety regulations and pollute to their heart's content, used the pollution that they were helping to create overseas as a lever to help prevent any changes in the country they had all but abandoned. Then, with PR warchests fat from profits carved out of family budgets and measured in lost jobs, they wrapped themselves in the flag and presented themselves with photoshopped populism.

To see anyone oppose these corporations, even in the slightest, is refreshing. Maybe essential. Or at least it would have been, had the Senate acted quickly enough to push this legislation through in time to show the rest of the world that the United States government wasn't a marketing arm for oil and coal. That didn't happen.

With that in mind, I feel a bit more free to respond to the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (which I'm going to refer to as "Boxer-Kerry" to keep from having to repeat that title and make a distinction with Waxman-Markey) put forward this week by Senators Boxer and Kerry. There are certainly things to like in the plan.

First, Boxer-Kerry contains significantly more provisions for the promotion of natural gas. If that sounds like a negative, consider this. Natural gas produces only half the carbon of coal when used to generate electricity. Not only can plants be built to burn natural gas, existing coal plants can be retrofitted to burn natural gas instead. We're so used to thinking of "oil and gas" together, that we may assume that natural gas is mostly in the hands of the same companies that control big oil, but most natural gas is actually controlled by far smaller companies (which is part of the reason natural gas has been all but ignored in previous energy bills). Finally, while peak oil came in 1970 and no new significant coal reserves have been discovered in years, natural gas has enjoyed a resurgence by discovering means of extracting gas from deep shales. Natural gas reserves are actually heading up while other fuels are going down. I don't want to sound like I've swallowed a T. Boone Pickens promotional brochure (and I still believe his scheme to be economically unworkable), but this combination of features makes gas a good bridge fuel as we work to replace electrical demand currently generated by coal.

Boxer-Kerry also contains a strong emphasis on conservation, with a series of programs designed to reward decreased consumption. The importance of this can't be overstated -- and the ability of Americans to conserve doesn't get nearly the press that it should. This past year has seen a sharp drop in electrical demand, something that opponents of energy legislation said was impossible, and only a small part of that has come from decreased manufacturing. Americans are watching the thermostat, and being rewarded by programs that help them conserve. We recently saw how effective the "cash for clunkers" program was in motivating people to make changes in their cars. Strong incentives to improve energy efficiency will leave us with both short term and long term gains, and do it more cheaply than any other provision. Without buying into the cutesy language of "negawatts," energy not consumed beats the tar out of any form of energy production. More energy is not equivalent to "progress," and using less energy is the most effective way of producing less pollution of all sorts.

On the feature that gets the most press, the carbon offset mechanism, Boxer-Kerry edges out Waxman-Markey by... actually, all the things that are being showcased as improvements (increased flexibility, a "carbon collar" that limits maximum cost, and provisions that make it easier for businesses to buy the offsets they need) actually make the bill weaker. There will be more carbon certificates available, available more readily, and available at a low price. These features ensure that the "cap and trade" structure will never impose enough of an economic cost to encourage movement from high CO2 sources. They've been so well designed to address business concerns, that they've been engineered into being inconsequential. Not that it's strict enough to have an effect under Waxman-Markey.

Boxer-Kerry also follows Waxman-Markey's lead in awarding massive payments to the biggest winner under both bills: coal. By far the biggest payments in the bill go into the pockets of the industry most responsible for the problem. If this is supposed to protect some huge number of jobs, it doesn't. There are fewer people employed in the coal industry than there are unemployed auto workers in Indiana alone. Yes, America has significant reserves of coal, but here's the thing there's no law that says we have to burn it all. Giving billions to the coal industry didn't make any sense under Waxman-Markey, and it doesn't make any sense in Boxer-Kerry. It doesn't "improve national security," it doesn't generate jobs, and it doesn't take us one inch closer to the energy infrastructure we want. Worst of all, the coal industry is rewarded for past sins, and gives up nothing in return.

Personally, I'd propose an energy bill that's much more simple. Maybe even radical.

No cap and trade. None.

No funding for "clean coal." Zero.

If we really want to make advances, we need to provide the funding and guaranteed orders that will allow alternative sources to compete on price. For a fraction of the funding now offered for the R & D of CO2 sequestration, we can ensure that solar and wind actually outcompete coal in the marketplace. Give them the boost they need to simply undercut the bastards. If that's not coming fast enough, use the natural gas to cut your CO2 in half by retrofitting the existing plants. For God's sake, don't do anything that encourages building more of the plants now causing the bulk of the problem.

If we really want to improve natural security, we won't do it by building power plants of any type. Instead we have to entangle the two parts of our energy picture by electrifying transportation. Providing funds for mass transportation and for electric vehicles is reducing America's demand for oil. Everything else has nothing to do with it.

And hey, if you really must give money to coal why not at least demand that mountaintop removal be off the table forever so they're giving up something before you lay out the buffet of federal dollars?