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."

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.

Picture two runners, call them China and America. They are running in a race. China is ahead of America, but America wants to get ahead and win. Right in the middle of the race, someone puts a massive weight on America’s back, clearing the path to victory for China.

According to Silicon Valley attorney John Doerr, who testified last week at an EPW Committee hearing, there is, in fact, a “clean energy race” between China and America, and China is “cleaning our clock.” Doerr’s plan for winning the race? Throw the massive weight of cap-and-trade on the back of America’s manufacturers and let China run free.

Doerr described China’s commitments to “develop and own clean energy technologies and markets” as “breathtaking.” Examples include cars that are more than “one-third more fuel efficient than U.S. cars,” investing “ten times more than the US on clean power as a percentage of GDP,” and the fact that China “is expected to become the world’s largest wind manufacturer this years.”

All of this is quite interesting, but Doerr’s argument suffers from a fatal flaw: China’s “breathtaking” commitments are occurring without cap-and-trade. Moreover, Doerr glosses over the crucial fact about manufacturing wind turbines and solar panels: making them is energy-intensive, which means significant costs for energy use. According to a paper by DOE’s Robert Garland, “manufacturing processes are amongst the most energy-intensive industrial systems.” “Energy costs,” he concludes, “are therefore a major driver for many plants in the United States.”

A mantra repeated endlessly in the cap-and-trade debate is that unilateral U.S. action on climate change will spur China (and other developing countries) to follow suit. This mantra is spoken with metronomic regularity, despite China’s unequivocal opposition, stated over and over again, to accepting mandatory emission cuts. Such opposition should be no surprise: China has amassed a long and ignominious record of divergence on issues in which the United States has taken the lead.

EPW Policy Beat delved into the historical record to find examples of China going its own way, regardless of U.S. example and leadership. In some cases, China stands in defiance of international trade rules and basic norms of justice and human rights.