I'll take it: David Brooks endorses the climate bill (with caveats, of course):

[beachmom]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/opinion/30brooks.html?scp=2&sq=David%20Brooks&st=cse

Nonetheless, the vision is certainly right. To remain the world’s pre-eminent nation, the U.S. is going to have to develop energy sources that are plentiful, clean and don’t enrich the worst people on earth. That means in the short term, the U.S. has to unleash the tens of billions of dollars of potential energy investments now being pent up by uncertainty and regulatory hurdles. To make a difference in the long term, the U.S. is going to have to invest more and differently in energy research and development.

...

It’s clearly going to take legislative action to catalyze private investment and to increase federal research to where it should be — about $25 billion a year, according to Mark Muro of the Brookings Institution. It’s going to take some equivalent of the Pacific Railroad Acts to kick this into gear.

The best vehicle now is the American Power Act, drawn up by John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham. The bill, like all politically plausible bills these days, is larded with special-interest provisions and public giveaways to defuse opposition and win votes. But it does perform a few essential tasks. To boost innovation, it raises the price on carbon and devotes some of that money (though not nearly enough) to research and development.

...

You get the sense that this country is straining against the leash, eager for a new wave of energy development. There will be excess, stupidity and greed along the way. But it would be simply amazing if, through some set of narrow political gamesmanship, Washington continued to stand in the way of all this.

I hope that some Republicans Senators, other than Graham, will come aboard to salvage this. Because I just don't think we can wait much longer to get this thing done.

[wisteria]

1. I agree with your last comments. n/t

[karynnj]

2. I like his summary and think it fair

From all accounts, the bill has lots of special interest give aways - and as Brooks says, that is what is needed to give it any chance. The key is that it will do the things, Brooks lists:

"But it does perform a few essential tasks. To boost innovation, it raises the price on carbon and devotes some of that money (though not nearly enough) to research and development."

Some of what Brooks is likely calling special interests, actually are things that help with regional fairness - so, one area of the country does not bear the brunt of the costs - due to long ago historical choices on energy.