Climatre change politics is merely politics, so even the rhetoric is about rhetoric.

If the framing is “costs” of cap and trade legislation, the Republicans will win the political debate, regardless of whose numbers turn out to be right. Of course, the reality is that cap and trade can be designed in any way you’d like with high or low (or zero) costs. But remember that the theoretical basis of cap and trade is that energy prices will increase, so low or zero cost increases will have low or zero effect on emisisons.

The political point is that if the debate hinges on costs, Republicans have the upper hand because if Democrats respond with claims of low or zero costs, and if this turns out to be untrue, then such claims will become a political liability. But if the claims of low costs turn out to be true, they will gut the policy from the standpoint of emissions reductions, and thus become a political liability.

Bottom line: Democrats cannot win the cap and trade debate if the issue is framed as costs to American households.

No, but they couldn't win with any other framing either since there is zero possibility of a regulatory system having a useful effect on climate change. This is one of those silly issues that only works for the opposition. When the Ds wandered in the wilderness they gained some benefit from disparaging the Rs for doing nothing about climate change, though there was nothing that could be done. Now that the Ds have power they become the do nothing party, or the do stupid party, or whatever since the issue has no regulatory solutions.

The silliness of this problem is a definitive example of Democrat core principles. They are the party of complaint, not the party of progress or any other constructive thing. Democrats are no more progressive than Republicans are conservative. They are rival gangs of thieves and thugs - organized crime syndicates - squabbling over the carcass of America.

The best outcome is for the Democrats to further entrench themselves as the party of deceit, as the Europeans have done, or the Brits (are they European?).

The idea is to create a “world-beating” British-based electric-car-manufacturing industry, while also attempting to meet Gordon Brown’s promise to have the nation converted to electric or hybrid cars by 2020.

That remarkable prime ministerial pledge predated the recession; its motive was to demonstrate that Britain was “leading the world in the battle against climate change”. We aren’t, as a matter of fact; but under new Labour we have certainly led the world at claiming to do so. Mandelson expressed this almost satirically last week when he declared that “Britain has taken a world lead in setting ambitious targets for carbon reduction”.

Ambitious targets, no accomplishments. This is how the Democrats will be known - well, that and the corruption thing.