Adam Siegel is trying to plow through the details of Waxman-Markey so there is one more reason for me not to.
I am trying to get a grip on the whole business and hope to have something to say after the dust settles. For the present, I am in favor of anything other than going to Copenhagen empty-handed and am somewhat reassured by Krugman’s acquiescence.
I’ve never really followed legislation through the negotiation phase before. I’ve heard it isn’t pretty. That assessment turns out to be correct.
I’ll point to useful articles as I come across them.
In It For the Gold 
You have heard the dictum that you should not inquiry as to how sausage and laws are made.
I find the politics of climate change legislation very frustrating. Still, from what little I know on the bill, it’s better than nothing. Krugman certainly has a point.Arguably, better public education= better policy. OK, I admit, that’s the optimistic view.
I’ll never understand WM.Makes me dizzy…
@DavidHere’s Waxman-Markey in a nutshell:We want climate legislation passed to get the ball moving domestically and have something to bring to the table at Copenhagen, in large part because that’s the only way to coax China into cuts.In order to do so, we’re going to give loads of money (by not 100% auctioning credits) to industry and otherwise water down the bill so that enough coal and manufacturing state Dems will vote for it.We will accept it as a necessary but insufficient *start* on the way to deep, meaningful cuts by 2050.
I doubt Adam Smith would have approved…