DISQUS

So in terms of timing, if it happens, it will most likely be early next year, although there's a lot up in the air, and it could be sooner or later than that.

First, the Waxman-Markey bill has to pass the House -- this is looking increasingly likely, although it's entirely possible that it won't get a single Republican vote, and some Democrats might defect. Then the Senate has to pass its version, which is a more difficult proposition, given the 60-vote threshold needed to break a filibuster. And then the two chambers will conference and reconcile the differences in their bills. Whatever cash-for-clunkers program survives that process will become law, assuming (as it's reasonable to do) that President Obama signs the bill.

Thanks for the comment, werewatching, but I'm not sure where you're getting your information about the poorest states. Looking at the personal per capita income by state, we see that the wealthiest 12 states and districts (DC, CT, NJ, MA, MD, NY, NH, MN, CO, CA, IL, VA) all voted for Barack Obama last November, while the four poorest (MS, AR, WV, UT) all voted for John McCain. Based on 2005 data:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_the_Unit...

Similar rankings based on slightly different data yield comparable results.

Please let me know where you got your information, and which 2 states you're referring to.

"very long term, post-2050"
I'm sure you realize that's WAY to late to make significant changes to our climate policy. I appreciate the value of Mr. Pickens' work, but I believe his approach is rather narrow, at least as he elaborated it today.

Jason,

Thanks for the note. Natural gas is indeed much cleaner than oil, and if we managed to replace all of our oil-based fuel with natural gas, it would be a huge step forward. But it still wouldn't be enough. Transportation only generates about a quarter of our greenhouse gas emissions. Without major changes to other areas of our economy (such as industry) and improvements in efficiency, we can't get near our emissions reductions targets.

So while I agree that natural gas is a big improvement over oil, I take issue with Mr. Pickens' stance that emphasizes the shift to natural gas over all else.

Hope that clarifies a bit,
Aaron

Hmm, now ProPublicais also reporting that the bill contains $3.4 billion for "Fossil energy research and development." I'll need to look into this further. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I'm not sure where Dow Jones is getting that information. Everywhere else, it's being reported that the $4.6 billion for funding related to carbon sequestration and coal has been stripped out. From Grist, for example:

"The Senate version of the bill had contained $4.6 billion for the research and development of carbon-capture-and-sequestration technologies for coal-fired power plants and $50 billion in loan guarantees for the nuclear industry, but that funding appears to have been dropped entirely, to the delight of enviros."

Looking at the actual bill itself, there are only a few references to carbon. First, in Part IV, section 1131, there are minor modifications to the wording of preexisting provisions related to carbon (eg. "Section 45Q(a)(2) is amended by striking 'and' at the end of the subparagraph"). Then, in Section 48C, a list of project types that will qualify for "advanced energy project credit" includes "property designed to capture and sequester carbon dioxide emissions." But this is listed below such projects as solar, wind, geothermal, fuel cells, etc. All of this is in the tax portion of the bill. There is no mention of carbon in the spending portion.

It appears that the $4.6 billion from the Senate bill has indeed by stripped. I would need to see where Dow Jones is getting its info from, but I'm skeptical of their conclusions.

That's a very sensible explanation. Thanks, Joe.

Another good theory, but can it really explain the fact that more than twice as many North Carolinians (proportionally) as Portlanders tuned in? Are Northwest folk really that much more tech-savvy than us Easterners?

A very good theory, and one I hadn't considered. (Let's blame that on post-inauguration fatigue....) Keep 'em coming.

You are such a Wiener

Very good point, Chuck. I have to assume that the CNN pollsters asked MN voters about their party affiliation, and 25% considered themselves independents. "Registered independents" might be misleading.

Voters with postgraduate education went 58-40 for Obama -- his second-strongest group, next to voters with no high school education (who only make up 4% of the populace). College graduates were actually McCain's strongest group within the education breakdown (50-48 for Obama nationally).

dmaddox,

Forty-four percent of respondents nationally described themselves as moderates. You can check out the other demographics here: http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/po...

That would indeed be interesting, since many people attributed the senior McCain vote to racial prejudice, which may have been lower among college graduates. Unfortunately, the exit poll data doesn't break it down that far.

Thanks, Fiki, for your insight -- and props on a most excellent and unusual name.

Rick Davis, in his presentation, argued that Lieberman's active and vocal support for McCain would potentially turn the state red. I don't think this was in any way contingent on McCain's VP pick. I agree that it was a bit delusional, since Lieberman would have a hell of a time winning reelection in CT if had to run this year.