It is convenient for green opponents of free-markets to assume the banner of Adam Smith when speaking of cap-and-trade. This preferred mechanism to reduce greenhouse gases is so effective and so efficient, they argue, because it is “market-based” or “market driven,” a veritable invisible hand that decides how and when reductions are made. To paraphrase Smith, it is not from the benevolence of the power plant owner, the refiner or the manufacturer, that we expect emissions reductions, but “from their regard to their own self interest” under a cap-and-trade system. Moreover, Smith wrote, “We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.”

Today, the National Journal Experts Blog on Energy and Environment asks the question:

Is legislation needed to protect wetlands and solidify the government's authority under the Clean Water Act? The White House and Democratic leaders are proposing legislation that would replace the term "navigable waters" with "waters of the United States," a move that they say is needed to restore the law's original intent of protecting wetlands, streams and other waterways. Proponents argue that a 2006 Supreme Court decision too narrowly interpreted the government's authority, confusing regulators and endangering the nation's ecologically important wetlands. But Republicans and business groups charge that the Clean Water Act legislation is a power grab that would expand federal control of private property, burden farmers and businesses, and override state authorities. Who's right?

As a contributor to the blog, Senator Inhofe responded:

TULSA WORLD EDITORIAL: "So, we'll be happy, for now, with the $100,000 and thank our hard-working Congressional delegation - specifically Sullivan, Inhofe and U.S. Rep. Tom Cole - for their efforts so far, and ask them to keep up the effort."

With all of the talk these days about green jobs—or, more precisely, the Democrats’ version of taxpayer subsidized green jobs—EPW Policy Beat wondered whether they will usher in a “clean energy future.” They won’t. We came to this conclusion after reading Henry Hazlitt’s classic book, “Economics in One Lesson.” In the book, Hazlitt takes up Bastiat’s theory of the broken window. Hazlitt wrote about a “hoodlum” who breaks a baker’s window. A crowd gathers, and, after some “philosophic reflection,” concludes that the baker’s misfortune has a bright side: the broken window creates business for the glazier, who will spend his new-found $250 with “other merchants,” who then will spend it with other merchants, ad infinitum. The smashed window, then, is a job creator, and the hoodlum is “a public benefactor.” Now it’s true that the broken window created jobs, but, as Hazlitt notes, one cannot ignore that which is unseen: the baker, out $250, cannot by a suit “or some equivalent need or luxury.”

A split between rich and poor nations in the run-up to climate-change talks widened on Thursday. India rejected key scientific findings on global warming, while the European Union called for more action by developing states on greenhouse gas emissions. Jairam Ramesh, the Indian environment minister, accused the developed world of needlessly raising alarm over melting Himalayan glaciers. He dismissed scientists’ predictions that Himalayan glaciers might disappear within 40 years as a result of global warming. “We have to get out of the preconceived notion, which is based on western media, and invest our scientific research and other capacities to study Himalayan atmosphere,” he said. “Science has its limitation. You cannot substitute the knowledge that has been gained by the people living in cold deserts through everyday experience.”

"Listen up, James Inhofe, because this might be the only compliment Grist ever pays you: You've got a decent website," writes the liberal online publication Grist today. "Despite your wacked-out view that climate change is a "hoax" and your opposition to a climate bill, inhofe.senate.gov does a fair job of making your climate and energy positions clear and accessible to the Oklahomans who voted to send you to Washington. In fact, your website is more transparent than the sites of many senators who completely disagree with your views on global warming, including Democratic leaders Harry Reid (Nev.) and Richard Durbin (Ill.), along with two of the most influential senators when it comes to environmental policymaking-Barbara Boxer (Calif.) and Jeff Bingaman (N.M.)."

In fact, Grist rated the website as "excellent" awarding the grade of "A" to Senator Inhofe's website.

Grist isn't the only left-leaning website to compliment Senator Inhofe for his web presence lately.

Following a YouTube post from Senator Inhofe's press office regarding a July 21, 2009 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, which the Denver Post reported made "Colorado Governor Bill Ritter squirm" ColoradoPols.com stated: "We have to admit we were also impressed with the speed Sen. Jim Inhofe's office had this video packaged and distributed through a wide viral network--all the way down to our own community talking-point beacons."

ROLL CALL: Climate Change Will Be Senate's Next Battle Royal (7/21/09) - Climate change is the ticking political time bomb on the Senate’s agenda this fall, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has the timer set to go off in late September. With the debate on health care sucking up so much oxygen in the Senate these days, few are paying attention to the cavernous gulf among Democrats over how to tackle global warming and the lack — so far — of a way to bring Members together while also appealing to Republicans. “It will blow up,” one senior Democrat said. With Democrats from the South, Midwest, Plains and Mountain West deeply skeptical of creating a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions, Senate Democrats could be even more split than they are on health care reform once the chamber actually begins to seriously focus on the issue. “There’s a lot of opposition to climate change in the Senate,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide. “You’re going to have to turn a lot of Democrats to get a bill.”

Colorado's Democratic governor sidestepped questions from the Senate's leading agitator on climate legislation about the depth of his support for a behemoth energy effort rolling through Congress. It comes days after another Democratic governor, Brian Schweitzer of Montana, called cap and trade the "wrong approach."

The hearing yesterday largely reinforced Democratic assertions that the climate bill known by the names of its House authors, Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), would fuel new-era energy jobs and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

But the response by Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter underscores the complexity -- and cost -- that Democrats face in reshaping the country's economy. The instigator, no less, was opposition enemy No. 1: Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma.

"I'm kind of wondering why you're here," Inhofe told Ritter, adding that the bill would "kill" future development of Colorado's vast reserves of oil shale and have a financial impact on the state's farmers. "Are you here supporting Waxman-Markey today?"

"I'm here by invitation," Ritter responded, spurring Inhofe to say, "So you don't necessarily support it?"

"Here's what I support," Ritter continued. "I support a national energy policy that's married to a national climate policy. It gets at these goals that we have for greenhouse gas reductions. And I believe that if you do that, there will be some vehicle that may not look exactly like Waxman-Markey, particularly after the Senate finishes its work. But I very much support climate legislation that is joined with a national energy policy to get us to the greenhouse emissions reduction goals."

With the passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), Congress doubled the corn-based ethanol mandate despite mounting questions surrounding ethanol’s compatibility with existing engines, its transportation and infrastructure needs, its economic sustainability, and numerous other issues.

Then as now, I believe it is just too early to significantly increase this mandate — the fuels industry needs more time to adapt and catch up with the many developing challenges facing corn-based ethanol.

The most pressing issue facing corn-based ethanol is the so-called “blend wall” of 15 percent. EISA mandated 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol by 2015. Here’s the problem: Federal regulations require that a gallon of gasoline should contain no more than 10 percent ethanol. So there’s more ethanol production than the amount of ethanol allowed in gasoline.

So what is the solution? Ethanol advocates have the wrong approach. Rather than rethink EISA’s mandates, they are lobbying for higher, mid-level ethanol blends in gasoline. Sounds like a simple solution, except its consequences would be dire, with potential damage to agriculture, the environment, and engine equipment manufacturers.

Climate change is the ticking political time bomb on the Senate's agenda this fall, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has the timer set to go off in late September.

With the debate on health care sucking up so much oxygen in the Senate these days, few are paying attention to the cavernous gulf among Democrats over how to tackle global warming and the lack - so far - of a way to bring Members together while also appealing to Republicans.

"It will blow up," one senior Democrat said.