Though an attempt to break through Senate Republican leadership’s filibuster fell short, today’s historic U.S. Senate vote on the Climate Security Act, the strongest global warming bill ever acted on by Congress, creates huge momentum for climate action heading into 2009. With both presidential candidates backing the Climate Security Act’s cap-and-trade framework for cutting America’s greenhouse gas emissions, convergence is coming between Congressional and White House leadership.

The good news is that many senators who have previously buried their head in the sand and pretended global warming doesn’t exist now acknowledge the problem is real. The bad news is they are now throwing sand in the gears to prevent Congress from actually doing anything about it.

Late last night during the Senate debate on the Climate Security Act, long after most reporters had gone home for the night, Majority Leader Harry Reid made a startling revelation:

[W]e have been provided with a copy of the page from the Republican playbook on how they intend to thwart the body from acting on this important legislation. This was provided to us by a lobbyist involved in Republican strategy meetings.

Among the instructions in the playbook? "[T]he focus is much more on making political points than amending the bill."

The full unofficial transcript of Reid's remarks follow:

UPDATE 3:58pm: Still reading. They have a rotation of clerks going to make sure they don't kill their voices. What a mockery of the legislative process.

As I write this, I'm watching the Senate clerk on CSPAN2 reading the entire 491-page Climate Security Act out loud. Both Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) have tried to waive the reading but were denied. Twenty minutes in, we're still on section titles.

This is the Senate GOP leadership's response to climate change - hot air. Clearly, they're concerned the bill is gaining support from both Democrats and Republicans as the debate was proceeding toward amendments.

Gas prices have shot up an incredible 250 percent since President Bush took office as Congressional Republican leadership has fought any effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil or improve our fuel efficiency. But now as the GOP denies and delays its way through the Climate Security Act debate, we’re to believe a possible 1 percent annual rise in gas prices is a reason for permanent paralysis on climate change legislation?

The real stunning numbers come in the gains towards energy security the Climate Security Act would bring.

On Monday, the U.S. Senate opened debate on the Climate Security Act (Boxer-Warner-Lieberman Substitute Amendment, S. 3036). The motion to proceed passed easily on a 74-14 vote, an indication that the vast majority of senators rejected the roadblock approach of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK).

Nevertheless, Minority Leader McConnell launched a strategy of delaying the serious debate and votes on amendments to this legislation by forcing 30 hours of debate before the first votes begin. The stall tactics are a sure sign that the minority leader intends to make Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid choose between a lengthy floor fight on global warming and other pressing senate bills before the Fourth of July recess.

While the debate about the Climate Security Act is still up in the air, with both sides uncertain how close the bill is to the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster, one thing is clear: the senators willing to side with Sen. Inhofe, who infamously claimed global warming was a "hoax," is down to 14. Republicans deserted Sen. Inhofe and Minority Leader McConnell in droves.

This just in from the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush is giving a Rose Garden speech on Wednesday on climate change to lay out the way he thinks the U.S. can reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

White House press secretary Dana Perino says that Bush will not outline a specific proposal, but instead will spell out a strategy for long-term goals for curbing emissions.

Bush wants every major economy, including China and India, to establish a national goal for cutting the emissions believed responsible for global warming. In his remarks, he also will talk about legislative proposals on Capitol Hill that the administration has expressed opposition to, as well as regulatory issues.

What do we think he'll say? The NYTimes' Andy Revkin takes the optimistic view that he may be seeking a climate legacy. Treehugger, on the other hand, summarizes Bush's new plan as "watch me pretend to care."

Two industry groups, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), have been relentlessly hyping an "independent study" claiming that the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act will destroy the economy. Massive job losses! Huge increases in energy prices! Panic!

Why was so much attention paid to the study? It came from Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC), a leading science adviser to the federal government. Sounds credible, right?

But there's just one problem - SAIC has disassociated itself from the results. Why? Because ACCF and NAM had their thumbs on the scale:

And we're back! It's the second and final day of sessions here at the Heartland Institute's global warming denial conference. You can check out all the posts from day one at Wildlife Promise.

UPDATE 9:08AM: The deniers say cutting carbon emissions will destroy our economy, leave us shivering in the dark, and force millions of children to the brink of starvation ... but it's climate activists who use scare tactics.

UPDATE 10:44AM: The real underdogs in the climate battle? ExxonMobil.

UPDATE 1:07PM: When all else fails, blame the media.

UPDATE 2:15PM: Noticed a few state representatives here. More on Stossel's remarks in a bit.

UPDATE 7:45PM: The strange story of how I found a home at Heartland.

UPDATE 3:37PM: Following the money trail.

UPDATE 1:39PM: I'm finding speakers here fall into three basic categories. Also, conference organizers were nice enough to open up the event to a few people from green groups who were originally told registration was full. Yay transparency!

UPDATE 11:44AM: Conference organizers were on Fox & Friends this morning.

I’m in New York City today for an event called "The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change." It’s sponsored by the Heartland Institute, one of the leading oil industry-funded deniers of global warming. According to ExxonSecrets.org, Heartland received $561,500 (unadjusted for inflation) from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.

Just got this forwarded to me from a friend on Capitol Hill:

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation representing more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, strongly opposes S. 2191, the "Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007." The Chamber instead favors a technology-based approach to limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

I'm guessing "technology-based" is Chamber-speak for "voluntary." The Chamber has also put out a video accusing climate action supporters of wanting to leave children shivering in the cold.

The Climate Security Act's opponents on the left often claim it's a giveaway to industry and that big business is supporting it because it fears tougher climate legislation next year.

So here's my question: If that's true, why is the Chamber of Commerce doing everything it can to kill this bill?

Rarely has one political analyst gotten so much wrong in the span of one segment as Mary Matalin did on CNN Wednesday:

MATALIN: Because [global warming is] a largely unscientific hoax. And it's a political concoction.

BLITZER: But he believes with [Sen.] Joe Lieberman [I-CT] -- he's co-sponsoring legislation on that.

MATALIN: He's going to have to put together an energy policy that has elements of conservation but productivity, and reduces our dependence on oil. He has said that. Some of the other issues, though --

BLITZER: But on global warming he's a true believer.

MATALIN: But he's not going to prioritize that, because that's not where the country is right now. And you haven't heard him prioritizing that.

Whew. All that nonsense is going to take some time to sort through. In the words of the immortal MC Hammer ... let's break it down:

Alaska, Arkansas and Missouri. They don't exactly rank with Haight Ashbury, the Village and Dupont Circle as hubs of liberalism.

So why were sportsmen from those states gathered in the Dirksen Senate Office Building today to announce their groups were signing on to a letter to Congress calling for climate action?

"Grandkids aren't Democrats or Republicans," said National Wildlife Federation President Larry Schweiger. "They're just grandkids."

Are you paying close attention to the New Hampshire primaries?  Are you concerned about global warming and environmental issues?  If so, read on.

The National Wildlife Federation has several staff on the ground in New Hampshire blogging about campaign events through an environmental lens.

Here are some highlights.

My colleague at NWF, Derek Brockbank, will be sending updates throughout the day.  I'll post them here and at Wildlife Promise.  The following is from last night.

I went to 2 campaign rallies tonight (well, three, but I got to the Obama rally right as it finished, so I don't count that) and I think momentum is building toward a conservation platform. Maybe not yet as a number one issue, but I think the era of candidates ignoring the environment may be over.

Cross posted at Wildlife Promise.

Grist has an excellent post called The Top Green Stories of 2007.  While they highlighted some of the biggest news, good and bad, I tried to focus on the most positive developments, some of which didn't get the media attention they deserved.  Overall 2007 was an amazing year for the environmental movement, but we've still got much work to do.  At NWF, we're all working hard to make sure that 2008 puts 2007 to shame in this category.

Yesterday the Senate passed an energy bill that helps reduce America’s oil dependency and takes an important step toward reducing global warming pollution. Unfortunately, the bill does not close $13 billion worth of tax loopholes and subsidies for the oil industry and reinvest the money in clean and renewable energy technologies. Earlier in the day, 40 senators blocked the bill, forcing Senate leaders to jettison the tax provisions.

Cross-posted at Wildlife Promise.

This morning the cloture vote (to end filibuster) on the Energy Bill was defeated 59-40.  John McCain was the only Senator not present for the vote.  On the democratic side, just one Senator, Mary Landrieu (LA), voted the wrong way, against cloture.  On the republican side, nine Senators, Lisa Murkowski (AK), Charles Grassley (IA), Richard Lugar (IN), Susan Collins (ME), Olympia Snowe (ME), Norm Coleman (R), Gordon Smith (OR), John Thune (SD), and Orrin Hatch (UT) voted the right way, for cloture.

Cross-posted at Wildlife Promise, a National Wildlife Federation blog.

Grist has an excellent round-up of the news coming out of of Bali over the weekend, including the fact that CNN has left "due to a lack of probable news".  I guess CNN would rather cover O.J. Simpson and Michael Vick than international climate discussions.

To follow-up on last week's green spotlight on the holidays, here are some additional green gift ideas you may be interested in.  These ideas are courtesy of NWF's own David Mizejewski.  He is co-host of Animal Planet’s "Backyard Habitat" and "Springwatch" shows and has been seen on Today, Good Morning America, Martha, Mike and Juliet, iVillage Live! and several other national programs.