The article appears to be critical of the fact that the U.S. didn't vote on the recent Senate Climate change bill. If countries like China have no intention of following "climate change" regulations, what benefit does legislation in the United States have? The Senate bill would have seriously hampered the U.S. economy without providing any real benefit to the environment.

Since I posted the article, I guess I'll offer a short response. I think the article notes the dispute as to the costs of the bill and the concerns about higher energy cost. It does note that there was no vote on the bill, but I'm curious, in what way is mentioning that no vote was held make the article biased to the right or left?

In terms of the US acting when other countries don't, I think that is a good point (though beyond the scope fo the article). I would offer that I think if the perspective considered is changed from 1-5 years to 10-20 years, there is a meaningful argument to be made that developing and encouraging development of alternative energy sources will actually benefit thte US economy and lead to development of new technologies that we can export/sell and in so doing grow our economy and make good high paying jobs in the US.

"The report comes on the same day that the U.S. Senate failed to pass, or even vote on, the almost 500 page Climate bill which had been underconsideration."

This line seems to criticize the U.S. Senates actions on Climate change. If the bill was a bad bill, and if Climate change isn't accepted as a given, then I would classify this critique as somewhat left leaning.

I agree that developing alternative sources of energy is a good idea for our future. Unfortunately, most climate change believers want to do it at gun point, or want to ignore one very viable alternative source: nuclear power.