• Calling for a 80% reduction by 2050 with specific and aggressive interim targets, as opposed to the 70% target in the draft
• Reiterating opposition to "safety valve" legislation like that in Bingaman-Specter
• Criticizing the degree to which free allocations of emissions credits are given to the fossil fuel sector
• Calling for more emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable energy

Everyone's hoping the bill will represent a marked improvement over what came out in August.

Meanwhile, green groups are split on strategy. This morning, Friends of the Earth put out a scathing press release, linking to this short analysis (PDF) and calling the bill a massive corporate giveaway that would primarily benefit the coal industry. FOE's main objection has to do with permit allocation -- L-W auctions only 24% of the initial pollution permits. That means 76% are given away, primarily to high-emission industries, i.e. coal.

Environmental Defense countered with their own release praising Lieberman and Warner and lauding the bill for ... well, for having a cap, as far as I can tell.

This is, in a sense, the same old strategy question that comes up all the time. Do you, like FOE, act as an outside agitator, draw lines in the sand, and try to pressure the political process? Or do you, like ED, worm your way inside the process, schmooze the big players, and strive to insure that the final bill is as good as it possibly can be under the circumstances?

If you say "we need both," gold star for you.

These are interesting times in the climate policy world.