Here's the official roll call (the names won't be up for a few minutes yet). A bittersweet day, to say the least.
The bill passes 86 to 8. Again, I will post the full Roll Call when it's posted on the Senate website shortly.
Roll call is still going on, and the thing has gone way over the top. For whatever reason, when Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) was called, and voted no, it rang in my ear. So I went and checked, and sure enough, she's switched her vote. Not sure what animated her. The Michigan thing? Not being able to say she supported a CAFE bill because of its renewable energy requirements? Others may have switched. I'll post the full roll call when it's up.
Ranking Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources committee Pete Domenici (R-NM) just stated strong support for the bill, after voting to kill the much better version. Domenici is as responsible as any single person for blocking the renewable energy provisions in the version of the bill sent up from the House. He deserves maximum raspberries today.
UPDATE: Feinstein is now trying to dig out of this. In all the galling news of today, this probably ranks as a mere annoyance, but …
She's the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. She carries a lot of weight and many will no doubt follow her lead. This thing is going to pass. James Inhofe just said he thinks it'll probably get about 80 votes. Perhaps the only interesting remaining question is whether anybody (Sanders?) will oppose this thing out of protest.
The floor debate over the (second) Senate vote on the energy bill has begun. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), the first to stand up and speak, now says she will support the bill. She voted no last time, so assuming no Republicans switch from "yeah" to "nay" (and that no Democrats switch from "yeah" to "nay"), this thing will go through.
I have a long column at Salon.com, "Desperate times, desperate scientists," which discusses how dire the climate situation is and how desperate climate scientists have become in the face of global inaction. In general, I am a fan of what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has done -- and they certainly deserve the Nobel Prize they shared with Al Gore. That said, at the end of the Salon piece I argue for disbanding it: In fact, I think that with the release of the recent synthesis report, the IPCC has reached the end of its usefulness. Anyone who isn't persuaded by that document and the general desperation of international climate scientists is unlikely to be moved by yet another such assessment and more begging. In particular, skeptical Americans are unlikely to be convinced by another international report that focuses on international climate impacts. We could use a new definitive analysis by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences on climate science, U.S. impacts, and solutions. That analysis should also do something the IPCC doesn't -- namely, look at plausible worst-case scenarios, given that such scenarios typically form the basis for most of our security and health policies. It would be harder for Americans to ignore an Academy study than the IPCC reports. An Academy study would also be more likely to get thorough attention from the U.S. media and possibly even from conservatives ... I just don't think that continuing the IPCC process will have any meaningful impact on American climate policy. And much of the rest of the industrialized world is ready to make the necessary commitments now.
I’m not watching the Dem debate in Iowa right now, so I pass the mic to former Gristie Kate Sheppard, who reports on candidate answers …