...would Lieberman-Warner be better than nothing at all?  Then, later on, could we not work at strengthening this as even MORE scientific evidence pours in?  Just wondering.  Thanks.

That people will think  this  is a solution and it isn't. We need a real solution now, this delays that solution by giving the impression of progress. All the science is in. We need a real solution now not later.
 

I hear environmentalists calling for an 80% cut in emissions by 2050.  Isn't setting the goal at 70% now (and then maybe increasing that number sometime in the near, Democratic-controlled government future) a fine idea?

I really don't know the details of this bill but it sounds a bit too good to be true, my guess is that if it actually does anything Bush will veto it because, you know, saving the world = supporting terrorists.

that actually passes this year with bipartisan support than an 80% cut that maybe never passes, maybe passes in 5 or 10 years when it's too late. 

really is likely. While he will ring in the terrorists when does so, no doubt, don't forget he is one of the Revelation-based evangelicals. He is psychologically committed to Armageddon plus the Second Coming, which, since it imminent, makes it not only useless to try to improve things, but makes it counter-productive to allow any improvement, since that might delay the Second Coming. Weird and convoluted, I know, but I believe he does think that way.  It explains also his reluctance really to work on creating an Israeli-Palestinian peace, for example.

Do you think Joe and John can gin up a veto-proof majority?

...but I believe that they can get a majority, which would be a start.  The previous Lieberman-McCain climate change cap-and-trade bills never got a majority of votes in the former Republican-controlled Congresses.

I discussed the new Lieberman-Warner approach over the weekend and linked to the paper (by a Duke professor and former Lieberman aide) it was based on.  I think it is a serious effort at regulating a cap-and-trade system appropriately and should be considered -- as long as we watch the fine print closely to make sure that corporate lobbyists don't add any gaping loopholes to it.

See here:

RICHMOND, VA - August, 2, 2007 - Michael Lipford, Virginia executive director of The Nature Conservancy, today applauded Sen. John Warner for his bold leadership on climate change...

"As a coastal state, climate change poses an especially strong threat to Virginia's land, economy and the welfare of its citizens," Lipford said. "Fortunately for Virginians, Senator Warner recognizes the severity of the threat and is committed to crafting a commensurately strong response."

Let's hope the Nature Conservancy is right, and that Sen. Warner really DOES see the grave threat of global warming for what it is.

See here and note that this is posted by Joseph Romm, former Acting Assistant Secretary at DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy during 1997 and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary from August 1995 though June 1998.  (note: I talked to Romm about energy-related carbon emissions, energy intensity, etc. when I worked at DOE)

See here:

The Lieberman-Warner legislation is just one more proposal that won't get the job done on global warming. The U.S. has generated a large proportion of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, and we owe it to the planet to take the lead in fighting global warming. We have to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050, and probably more, but this legislation proposes just a 70 percent decrease-and most of its decrease comes in the distant future, even though major reductions are needed now. The legislation also violates the `polluter pays' principle by distributing many emissions permits for free...