That may be an understatement. Why should the U.S. Senate vote into law a bill that, even if followed by the industrialized nations who adopted the failed Kyoto Protocol, would only reduce global temperature a mere seven percent? Why should they risk their seats when this climate measure would cost untold trillions of dollars and condemn future generations to a reduced standard of living, with no appreciable environmental gain?

Key senators know that global warming science is hardly "settled." New reports are appearing regularly in science journals showing that primitive computer models have overestimated global warming, and that economic growth—and, indeed, human life expectancy—is highly correlated with our current mix of energy technologies. Carbon dioxide emissions in 2009 will be far beneath those of last year for one reason only: economic decline.

It is a mystery why the Obama administration and leaders in Congress would push ahead with the Boxer-Kerry measure. Why would the voting public swallow this bitter and pointless medicine now, as jobless totals mount and homes are foreclosed?

For one thing, lawmakers in his own party won't be able to stomach it at this point. Everybody seems to forget that the ire in town hall meetings over the summer really began over climate policy. There wasn't even a health care bill to be mad about until well into August, and the public was already up in arms over this administration's aggressive and intrusive policy direction. Obama is putting his friends in Congress on a path that will make 1994 seem like a day at the beach.

With Obama's initiatives already having added trillions to our deficit, cap-and-trade would impose an additional cost of over $10 trillion on the U.S. economy. At the same time, it will do nothing about our climate. The president knows that even if every nation that has committed to the Kyoto Protocol adopted cap-and-trade, only 7 percent of the warming predicted by the United Nations would be prevented. The president also knows that planetary temperatures haven't warmed a bit in the last 14 years, and that the extreme forecasts that provide support for extreme legislation are failing, even as he speaks about warming in this very chilly autumn.

While this is EPA's first foray into industrial greenhouse-gas regulation, it will not be its last. And while industry cannot be happy, the Senate is probably relieved, as it struggles with cap-and-trade legislation.

Sens. John Kerry and Barbara Boxer have co-sponsored the rollout of a measure that has stricter near-term emissions reductions that the Waxman-Markey bill that squeaked through the House on June 26. The bill is, as they say, a dog that won't hunt.

Boxer-Kerry imposes emissions cuts in 2020 that are 18 percent larger than in Waxman-Markey, the bill that actually sparked the first angry town-hall meetings. By 2050, it has the same target, which allows the same level of carbon dioxide emissions as the average American in 1867. There is simply no known suite of technologies that can accomplish this while preserving the current standard of living.

Boxer-Kerry will begin with emissions reductions in the next three years. That won't be hard, because the current economic downturn, the most severe in decades, is likely to reduce 2009 emissions by 9 percent from the 2005 level, according to projections by the Environmental Information Agency. Imagine the state of the economy with the 83 percent reduction required by 2050.

There are too many Democratic senators from energy-producing states that will not vote to cut off debate, which requires 60 votes. It's likely only two Republicans will vote for this, leaving it far short. As shown by today's action, emissions regulations are likely to default to Environmental Protection Agency, laying the onus on President Obama, rather than on 33 senators up for re-election next fall.

In any case, the recent announcement by China that they will continue to grow their emissions dramatically means that neither Boxer-Kerry or the EPA will do anything significant about global warming."