Meanwhile, BP’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill continues to grow.  Don’t miss these new photographs taken by Greenpeace.

And for the best coverage of both stories together, see The Colbert Report below.

Woke to the news, three grim faced men, Senators, said they weren’t going to be able to help on global warming.  The only Republican supporter of the not yet announced but widely described bill, Lindsey Graham, had a new demand.  Not only did he insist that the bill subsidize the building of nuclear power plants and open up our coasts to oil drilling – conditions since met by the White House — he wanted the Democrats to hold off immigration reform so it wouldn’t hurt some Republicans running for Senate.  It’s rumored that he also wanted Caps tickets for the final game on Wednesday evening and a guarantee from the White House that they would beat the Canadiens.

Weird. But I felt happy.  Which is weirder still. I’ve worked for almost 20 years to stop global warming and I feel joy when the Senate global warming bill begins to unravel.  How did we get here?

The bill that Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman (KGL) keep threatening to introduce is reputed to be more of a polluters’ bill than an environmental bill. Massive new subsidies for the coal, oil and gas industries, a new trading scheme for Wall Street (this time in derivatives of carbon pollution instead of mortgages), promised CO2 emissions reductions primarily from ungovernable “offsets” in the developing world, and pre-emption over state effort to stop global warming or even the EPA’s recently Supreme Court granted right to do the same.

There are smart people who say that we need a bill on global warming, any bill, and the rest of the world will start moving too.  But it seems to me that if we pass a fake bill, it won’t be a little first step but rather the last step.  And the Chinese, Indians, Brazilians are unlikely to be so ignorant as to watch the Senate pass a fake bill and turn around and make real emissions reductions in their own economies.

But figuring this out isn’t my job. I didn’t join the environmental movement to try and become a master dealmaker. Let’s leave that to the politicians and their staff. I’m more interested in the people building a powerful swell of public support that politicians eventually have to follow.  Democracy done right means politicians listen to the people.  Not the coal companies or the oil companies or Goldman Sachs.

I come from the American tradition that liberated itself from a corrupt king and which now has to liberate itself from corrupt corporate oligarchs.  To do that we’ll have to organize in every corner of this fair land and peel the grip of the polluters off the levers of power.  But there is one thing we must do first.  The original role of the environmental community is to tell the truth.  Our role is not to design ever more complex legislative schemes that enrich the oligarchs and confuse the public.  The truth is that global warming is bearing down on us and we are not a step closer to solving it than we were 40 years ago.

And yet there is something that I find hopeful, an alternative bill, though the media pretends it isn’t there.

The media has been focused on the three men who have been talking about a bill for months while ignoring two women Senators, Democrat Cantwell and Republican Collins, who have actually introduced a bill, the CLEAR Act (the Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal Act).  Simple, elegant architecture, it auctions the right to pollute to the importers, drillers and miners of carbon-based fuels that come into the economy.  These costs get passed along to you and me so we use less.  It works like a tax, increasing the price so we use less carbon-based fuels. That’s a good thing. And then it takes most of that revenue and gives a cash payment, ever year, to everyone with a social security number.

Top Republican pollster Glen Bolger from Public Opinion Strategies recently polled 1,000 likely voters in five politically moderate to conservative states about their views on climate legislation. According to Bolger: “The CLEAR Act from Cantwell and Collins has the best chance of getting more votes over party lines because people like the concept of less government involvement [and a] tax-cuts-style refund back to the people.” Maybe this bill is a better way to get Republican support than to start giving companies the right to drill off our beaches.

Energy & Environment Daily: GOP Pollster Sees Backing For Cantwell-Collins Bill

Ashlie Rodriguez
Friday, April 23, 2010 1:05 PM

Many moderate and conservative voters say they support reducing carbon emissions and investing in renewable energy sources, according to pollingconducted by Public Opinion Strategies (R).

Pollsters asked 800 likely voters nationwide and 1,000 likely voters in five politically moderate to conservative states — Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Idaho and Virginia — about their views on climate legislation. In particular, they hoped to test the policies laid out in the Carbon Limits and Energy for American Renewal Act put forth by Sens. Maria Cantwell, D- Wash., and Susan Collins, R-Maine.

“The CLEAR Act from Cantwell and Collins has the best chance of getting more votes over party lines because people like the concept of less government involvement [and a] tax-cuts-style refund back to the people,” said Glen Bolger, a co-founder of Public Opinion Strategies.

Fifty-seven percent of Republican respondents in the five states said they think America’s energy policy needs “either a complete overhaul or major reform,” and even bigger majorities of Democrats and independents agreed. And three-quarters of respondents favored policies that reduce emissions and increased the use of renewable energy sources.

When read a (glowing) description of the clean energy refund, a measure proposed by the CLEAR Act that would charge companies for emissions and then refund most of the money to taxpayers, 74 percent of those in the national survey approved of the idea. Only 11 percent strongly disapproved of the refund as described in the poll. Bolger concluded that people were most receptive to messaging that emphasized the measure’s fairness and the fact that it would “reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”

Try that at a DWI checkpoint.  ”Officer, I’m still sober although my distance to downgrade has been substantially diminished.”

It sounds like the same nonsensical reasoning that led to some of their past ratings.  Maybe it is a threat to keep the Obama Administration from doing meaningful financial reform.  Maybe it’s someone trying to sound like the Alan Greenspan of old — remember when he used to utter things that were once deemed as important as the cracks on a turtle shell?  But still, the ironclad guarantee of payback in non inflated currency on a loan to the US does seem somehow like it has changed “substantially.”