I can't imagine a situation where John Warner would be more pro-environment than Jim Webb.  

Senator Warner speaks long and fondly about his environmental convictions.  I saw him at an event about a month ago - when asked what he'd like to do in his retirement he said "If it weren't for the laws prohibiting a former member of congress from immediately becoming a lobbyist, I would join an environmental lobby group."

Jim Webb on the other hand, while smart and probably supportive, doesn't actively talk about the issue.

Also - today's front page news - Sen. Kennedy will undergo surgery today - while sad in and of itself, means the environment will lose one of its strongest debaters in the Senate and a vote for the bill.  Good thing McSame thinks the bill "isn't even important enough to show up" (read: I might be pro-environment, but I want to act like a Republican, the stupid Bush kind, but I'm too afraid to actually vote my convictions either way, just like with the Webb GI bill, even when my best friends Joe and John are calling the shots).

difference with Jim Webb: energy and the environment.

I'm practically a single-issue voter with environment being the issue, and I would be willing to vote for an environmental Republican (Schwarzenegger, Crist, J. Warner) over a coal Democrat.

Fortunately (I guess...), environmental Republicans in Virginia are few and far between, and naturally Webb was a far better choice than Allen, and probably any statewide matchup will have a better D than R.

Just an educated guess

Webb might be looking at this issue from a union and jobs perspective.

For the record although I have not read the bill myself based on some of the descriptions it seems like a good bill  

His environmental record.  

http://www.raisingkaine.com/sh...

You wrote about it.  Let's face it, this is a problem with Webb.  We cannot count on him to do the right thing on a moderate global climate change bill co-sponsored by an Independent and a Republican, and instead we have to put up a call to action to call him.  I hope he comes through today.  This is a weak area for him, and he needs to show that he gets this is a real issue, frankly a national security issue, that needs to be dealt with.

n/t

Great article on how Sen. Warner became a climate warrior in today's Virginian-Pilot

In 1943, as war raged across Europe and the Pacific, Warner's father, a Washington physician, told him that soon it would be his turn to serve his country and that he needed to get ready.

"I'll pay your way one-way to go somewhere and work for 90 days," his father told him, "and you better make enough money to get home or you're going to stay there."

Warner ended up in northern Idaho, fighting fires and clearing trails for the U.S. Forest Service.

"It was a breathtaking experience.... Those forests were pristine," he said. "We used to fish in the streams and drink water out of the streams. I can see the trees. Just magnificent.

"I'm carrying those memories always."

Two years ago, on a political trip to Idaho, Warner recruited a Forest Service ranger to lead him back to the panhandle.

"I was absolutely devastated when I saw those forests," he said.

For mile after mile, the lush green countryside had been turned brown. The ranger told him the forests are being destroyed by beetles that once were kept in check by cold winters but now flourish year-round, Warner said.

His escort was a 25-year Forest Service veteran. He told Warner, "I do remember what you saw, but you can't find that in these forests today."

Warner returned to Washington resolved to delve deeper into climate change.

Nature has a way of cutting through the spin, doesn't it?

Miles (or anyone else) -

Will the Senate vote on this bill today?  Will they at least bring up cloture to decide whether or not to vote/end debate?  I'm not familiar with the timeline...

Debate opens today. Rumor has it Republican leadership will allow at least a few days of debate before filibustering.

...you're against "cap and trade."  Are you against carbon taxes as well?  If so, then you're against both of the major policy tools to combat global warming.  I hope I'm wrong.

Here is some more info on this wonderful group:

AFP was established in 2003 with money from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation as a successor to Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation, following an internal rift at the organization.

What is the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation?  Here you go:

Funding for the foundations comes from the conglomerate Koch Industries, the "nation's largest privately held energy company, with annual revenues of more than $25 billion. ... Koch Industries is now the second largest family-owned business in the U.S., with annual sales of over $20 billion."

"The company is owned by two of the richest men in America," David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch (described as 'reclusive billionaires'), who have a combined personal fortune estimated at more than $3 billion and who have emerged as major Republican contributors in recent years. ... Both David and Charles Koch are ranked among the 50 richest people in the country by 'Forbes'."

The Koch brothers control the three family foundations that have "lavished tens of millions of dollars in the past decade on 'free market' advocacy institutions in and around Washington."[2] --'The Nation', "What Wouldn't Bob Dole Do for Koch Oil?"

The foundations are financed via the oil and gas fortunes of Fred G. Koch, a founding member of the John Birch Society. David is a libertarian who "provides a significant amount of funding for the Cato Institute's $4 million annual budget."

I hate to break this to you, but the global economy is going to be destroyed by Mother Earth if we don't take drastic measures starting yesterday.  If you think paying higher taxes is uncomfortable, just wait til Global Warming takes action.  And I promise you, none of us will have a vote on that action.  

So we can pay now on our terms (albeit painful) or we can pay a short time from now on nature's terms (more painful & no way out).  

on this issue?  The "side" that doesn't care if the the earth is totally trashed because of greed and stupidity?

Statement from Former Vice President Al Gore

I want to commend Senator Boxer for her leadership of the Environment and Public Works Committee.  Thanks to her vision and dedication, we have the first global warming bill in history that is comprehensive, bipartisan and that enjoys support across the country--from labor and agriculture to the business and the environmental communities.  Of course the bill needs to be stronger, but it's vital that Congress begin to act.  While it's important that people change their light bulbs, it's even more important that we change the laws.

See here for the White House's predictably idiotic comments:

The White House on Monday slammed legislation the U.S. Senate will consider this week aimed at controlling climate change, arguing it would cut economic growth and lead to soaring gasoline prices.

"As you can imagine, our opposition to this will be quite strong and we'll be making these points throughout the week," Keith Hennessey, director of President George W. Bush's National Economic Council, said at a White House forum on the economy and taxes.

U.S. gross domestic product could be reduced by as much as 7 percent in the year 2050 and gasoline prices -- already at record highs in the United States-- could soar by as much as 53 cents a gallon by 2030, he said.

Blah, blah, blah.

and could soar by 53 cents by next year - never mind 2030.  WTF is he talking about?  Oh yeah, typical reality challenged Team Dubya drivel.  

around $1 per gallon when Bush assumed office to $4 per gallon today.  But now, he opposes cap and trade because it might -- and where he gets this from, who the hell knows -- cause gasoline prices to go up another 53 cents per gallon?  What. An. Imbecile.

Just received this in an email:

Senate Takes On Cap-And-Trade

Today, the Senate begins an historic floor debate on legislation that calls for mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) version of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 3036). This is the first time the Senate will engage in full debate on legislation to cap global warming pollution and create a multi-billion-dollar market of tradable pollution permits. Lieberman-Warner would limit emissions from coal-fired power plants, oil refiners, and other major carbon polluters, reducing total U.S. emissions by 18 to 25 percent below current levels by 2020, and 62 to 66 percent lower by 2050. Such legislation would mark an important first step in the transition away from a fossil-fuel economy. Although the bill is "by no means perfect," as Daniel J. Weiss, Center for American Progress Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy, argues, "the Climate Security Act is the most comprehensive and potentially effective global warming bill ever before the U.S. Senate." Not surprisingly, this fundamental restructuring is encountering stiff opposition from industry polluters. As former British prime minister Tony Blair wrote, this week's debate represents "a hugely important signal of intent on behalf of U.S. legislators."

KEY ISSUES: Three core principles by which to judge climate legislation are whether it is scientifically sound, whether it makes polluters pay, and whether it ensures social equity. Lieberman-Warner takes major steps in the right direction with its mandatory reductions framework, assistance for low-income households, and many provisions to spur new jobs, renewable technology, and energy efficiency. Yet it falls short in a key aspect: auctioning revenues. A Center for American Progress report released today explains the clear benefits of auctioning 100 percent of the greenhouse gas emission permits from day one, as a bill introduced by Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) last week would require. In contrast, Lieberman-Warner directs hundreds of billions of dollars of "transitional assistance" to polluters and allows 30 percent of the allowance market to be "offsets" instead of direct reductions. A new call to action signed by 1,700 top climate scientists and economists calls for significantly deeper greenhouse emissions reductions than the bill would achieve. Last year, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) determined that industrialized nations like the United States, whose prosperity is built on a century of unlimited greenhouse pollution, need to reduce emissions by at least 36 percent from current levels by 2020 and at least 85 percent by 2050 to have an even shot at avoiding climate catastrophe.  

but

I am sure I could pull some interesting donors from Center for American Progress

Regardless, the main point is all of these organizations have agendas.  Unfortunatly most voters aren't smart enough to realize this.

has admitted to not be getting much email and phone calls on this.  So be sure to also call or email his local offices.  Here's a list of those phone numbers:

Hampton Roads
222 Central Park Ave.
Suite 120
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
Phone: 757-518-1674
Fax: 757-518-1679
Email: Jeanne_Evans@Webb.Senate.gov

Northern Virginia
1501 Lee Highway
Suite 130
Arlington, VA 22209
Phone:703-807-0581
Fax:703-807-5198

Norton
756 Park Avenue, N.W.
Norton, VA 24273
Mail to: 756 Park Avenue, N.W.
P.O. Box 1300
Norton, VA 24273
Phone: 276-679-4925
Fax: 276-679-4929

Richmond
507 East Franklin Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: 804-771-2221
Fax: 804-771-8313

Roanoke
3140 Chaparral Drive
Building C, Suite 101
Roanoke, VA 24018
Phone: 540-772-4236
Fax: 540-772-6870

The message is simple and quick...

Tell him to: Please strengthen and pass the Climate Security Act with solutions based on the best climate science.