WASHINGTON - As they watch President Obama's ambitious health care plan crumble, the advocates of a comprehensive bill to combat global warming are turning their sights to a more modest package of climate and energy measures that they believe has a better chance of clearing Congress this year.

Their preferred approach, a cap-and-trade system to curb emissions of climate-changing gases, already faced a difficult road in a bruised and divided Senate. Its prospects grew dimmer after the special election in Massachusetts last week was won by Scott Brown, a Republican who repudiated the federal cap-and-trade proposal in his campaign.

Republicans, industry executives and some Democrats have already written cap and trade's obituary, at least for this year. And even some of the system's most ardent supporters now say they must scale back their ambitions and focus on job-creating energy projects and energy efficiency measures if they are to have any hope of dealing with climate change in this Congress.

In the last in our series on EPA's endangerment finding, we take a closer look at the basis on which the finding was made. EPA's finding rests predominantly on the conclusions of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). As the apotheosis of green aspirations, the IPCC is, as one top Administration official described it, the "gold standard" of climate change research. The "scientific consensus" on climate change and its causes is, as historian Naomi Oreskes stated, "clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

There is no daylight between the views of Oreskes and EPA. In the "Technical Support Document" explaining the scientific basis of the endangerment finding, EPA stated that "the conclusions here and the information throughout this document are primarily drawn from the assessment reports of the IPCC," among other sources.

One could readily take comfort in EPA's relying on the "gold standard" to make such a momentous finding. Yet, what happens to endangerment when the "gold standard" loses its sheen? We refer to the recent unpleasantness emanating from the IPCC itself. As it turns out, the IPCC's startling assertion that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035-asserted in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007-was predicated on...not much at all.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.): "As Kerry noted, House members put themselves on the line when they approved a climate bill earlier this year. But the health backlash is only the latest roadblock in the Senate, and it's not at all clear that supporters will be able to clear all - or even any - of them. "It will take a lot of work," said Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.). ‘We need to take a break around here and step back before we try anything of any controversy.'" (GOP warns of harsh climate on energy bill, Politico)


Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.): "Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said it would be good to take a break between two bills where senators have considerable differences. ‘Once health care is over, we've got to take everyone's temperature,' she said. ‘I'm pretty new but I've got to tell you, after you do one really, really big, really, really hard thing that makes everybody mad, I don't think anybody is excited about doing another really, really big thing that's really, really hard, that makes everybody mad.'" (Financial reform debate may influence future of cap and trade, E&E; News)

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.): "When they do move into the environment and energy arena, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) said he would prefer Congress work on a bill that he plans to introduce with Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) that curbs conventional air pollutants like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury. Past versions of the legislation have also included a limit on carbon dioxide emissions, but Carper said he would leave that debate for later. ‘We're not going to start there,' Carper said. ‘We're going to start with three of those P's. And we'll leave the last of those out for now.'" (Senate Dems urge short-term focus on jobs, cap-and-trade delay, E&E; News)

Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska): Begich was asked about cap-and-trade legislation to deal with climate change, and said he thought that didn't have as much momentum in Congress as it did last year. Instead, he said he would focus on good energy legislation, and noted that such a bill would address the same issues as a climate bill -- developing new energy sources and new energy production technology, and finding more efficient means of delivering energy, would in effect help to curb emissions. ‘If you get into that (climate change) debate, what's the goal? Energy," Begich said. "I think that's the better use of our time.'" (Begich: Looks to long term: Senator: Alaska needs sustainable solutions, not year-to-year deals, Peninsula Clarion)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.): "‘I think it's clear from the hiatus that a large

WASHINGTON - The Environmental Protection Agency announced a new pollution standard Monday to protect Americans from short-term exposure linked to major roads.

U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., a major congressional player on such issues, warned that the EPA's move is yet another example of "more job-killing regulations" that will hurt states and local communities.

"In this case, Oklahoma will be directly affected," he said.

The top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Inhofe vowed to work closely with officials in Oklahoma to ensure that the EPA's "misguided rules" do not restrict economic development.