Every so once in a while as I cruise facebook I’ll see that one of my friends is in the middle of a personal conflict and will list their relationship status as: It’s complicated. On some level that is kind of the way I feel about the new Senate climate bill offered up by John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). It is complicated, but in the end I feel it is a heartbreaking and hopeful step that we need to take to move forward on energy conservation climate change. And maybe that is good.

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/05/long-last-climate-and-energy-bil-emerges

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dfesta/detail??blogid=168&entry_id=63435

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/the-american-power-act/

So what sings and what sucks in the American Power Act? First, the bill retains the carbon emission reduction targets of 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050 contained in the House bill passed nearly a year ago. It is good to have goals, even if they are a little on the weak side. It moves us and gives us a starting point for adjustment.

The bill also channels a huge chunk of the emissions permitting fees to help consumers (hint: you and me) deal with any rise in power bills. And that makes sense on a number of different levels.

Major investments and loan programs in transportation alternatives and electric cars and trucks also make me happy. As do efforts by Frito-Lay, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Coca-Cola Enterprises, Staples, AT&T, and Kansas City Power & Light to build electric truck fleets and get ahead of the curve (http://tinyurl.com/24pbxkz). This glee also extends to requirements to lower vehicle emissions in general—let’s knock down tailpipe trash!

Good also are investments in renewable energy and building efficiency. It makes good sense to attack this problem both on the consumption and production side. And I hope that a good portion of the investment goes to schools to make them energy efficiency exemplars. Schools should educate as well as lead and here is a perfect opportunity for them to do both.

And I am willing to give a big yahoo for green job investment or really anything that creates employment during these trying times. It makes wonderful sense to “purchase” jobs that will help us beat this climate thing and be globally competitive in the future.

My smile is there but a little less large on offshore oil drilling provisions. Sure it is great that states can veto drilling off their shores, but I am still concerned that 37 percent of offshore oil revenue still acts as a strong incentive for cash-strapped states to take the risk. And, hopefully, this section of the legislation is still evolving with the Gulf oil spill and will contain stronger direction in terms of safety expectations and responsibility.

The stuff I am not so happy about includes a slower ratcheting down on the biggest smoke stacks. I know it will be an expensive and complicated undertaking for industry players, but my sympathy button is a little worn out as many of us have been in discussions with industry for three decades or more on this topic and they have been actively lobbying against progress and sabotaging legitimate efforts. But I can live without being punitive, as long as we make real progress.

I am also not all that keen on the bio-fuel provision. Here the devil is in the details and we need to steer away from proposals that turn crop land into fuel production and steer more towards converting waste into fuel.

And having lived in the shadow of Vermont Yankee (above) for a number of years, the nuclear loan provisions make me shudder more than just a little. This may be a necessary evil in our quest to solve our greenhouse gas issues, but if that is so we need to be very, very, very cautious about how we do it. Companies need to be held accountable and plants need to be inspected and then inspected again. And I still hold with the notion that best nuclear reactor we can use is the one that sits roughly 93 million miles away. That is my story and I am sticking to it!

Nearly 1000 pages—one ream of double sided paper—later with all the pluses and minuses counted what do we have? I’ll answer this by telling a story. Nearly a decade ago a small delegation from Japan came to my office at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation to talk about environmental advocacy and legislation. We struggled for a while in part because working via a translator was tough and also because our laws and their legal system elements are not always equivalent. One sticking point was the role of the federal government. We stumbled around until I remembered Japanese reverence for baseball. Then I said: The federal government is supposed to act as a backstop and not let the ball go spin off out of control. After a chorus of “we love baseball,” they got it.

So my answer here is that this legislation is an imperfect but serviceable backstop. It is not going to do anything ultra-spectacular, but it could help start the process of making sure our collective “ball” does not go spinning out of control.

I say start because the other part of this has to be regional, local, and personal action. We (yes, you and me) have to work together to make sure the weak provisions are eventually strengthened and that the best programs are used properly and renewed. And we have to take seriously our roles in causing the problem and our personal responsibility in being part of the solution. In other words, if you want to start a revolution then make it an energy revolution.