What If Congress Can't Pass a Climate Change Bill Before Copenhagen?

Okay, I know that we've kinda beaten this point nearly to death with innumerable blunt objects, but it bears repeating that the United States needs a climate change bill in place before going to the Copenhagen Conference in December, as our negotiators are not allowed to promise in a treaty anything that our government has not already codified unilaterally. So it's desperately important that Congress pass a bill if the United States is to play any real constructive role in the Copenhagen process. We've been cautiously optimistic about the possibility of a bill being passed, especially with Senator Barbara Boxer trying to force the bill into the Senate from her committee. However, one opinion coming from Mother Jones fears that this is already a lost cause, and no climate change bill will be passed before the Conference.

Kate Sheppard, who covers energy and the environment for Mother Jones, lays out her resignation to this fact in a piece called, simply, "It's Official: No Climate Bill This Year." Even if Boxer can get the bill out of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, Sheppard fears that's just not going to be enough to get a bill done in time. She said yesterday, November 4:

[O]n Tuesday Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would direct the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a full run of studies after he combines the various components of climate and energy legislation into a single bill. The EPA says this process will take about five weeks. Copenhagen kicks off on Dec. 7, just 32 days from now.

As well, Boxer's committee is only one of many that can choose to study the bill, hold hearings, and do markups on it. Sheppard notes that one Democratic committee chair has already suggested not taking up the bill until after the 2010 elections. This delay could effectively kill not only Copenhagen hopes, but also the climate change bill itself.

The facts of the matter are, indeed, grim. I honestly had, and still have, a sliver of hope left that a bill could be passed in time. And I actually still hold on to this naive dream that the American negotiators will decide to act even if Congress can't pass a bill in time, and commit the United States to strong policies combating climate change. But if Sheppard is right, it might be that the United States will refuse to any agreement that sets specific targets and goals for reducing greenhouse gases or carbon emissions, or even pledging money to developing nations to combat climate change. And then what - does the treaty lose any bite it could have had, or does it remain strong, without the United States as signatories? Personally, I'm scared for either choice.