You'll have to forgive us for being a little late to report on the 189 page EPA analysis of the controversial Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. We've kind of been waiting for the issue to come up on the campaign trail. Silly us.

The Climate Security Act covers 82 percent of US greenhouse gas emissions in both 2030 and 2050, and would result in emissions that are 25 percent less than 1990 levels. Those are greater emission reductions than would be required than under the Climate Stewardship Act, which Lieberman had worked on with John "cap and trade is not 'mandatory'" McCain.

Under Lieberman-Warner, the greatest reduction in emissions would come from electricity generation, while having almost no effect on transportation, the fastest growing sector in the country. According to the EPA analysis, gas would only increase by $0.53 by 2030, and $1.40 by 2050. We don't claim to be clairvoyants, but are willing to bet money that the U.S. sees $4.00 gas much sooner than 2030 ... like Labor Day weekend '08.

We know what you're thinking; the reductions are going to come from exporting energy-intensive production to developing nations, like we've been doing with China. Well, you're wrong. For those of you reading along at home, page 5 of the report says, "No international emissions leakage occurs," meaning we're keeping our emissions to ourselves. Actually, the U.S. would end up exporting more GHG-intensive products, like cement and steel, while importing less energy-intensive goods, as developing nations themselves become more efficient and reduce their emissions.

Electricity prices are expected to increase some, depending on how emissions credits are allocated and whether the utilities pass along increased costs or savings to the consumer. On the whole, GDP growth in 2030 is only expected to be 1 percent less than if no action is taken, which seems like a bargain to us.

Last December, the Climate Security Act became the first climate change bill to ever make it out of committee, and is expected to be brought to the Senate floor this June. Lieberman (I-CT) and Warner (R-VA) very nicely asked the EPA to review their bill in the end of November, and got their report the middle of last month. That's a pretty good turn-around, considering how long it took the EPA to deny California its waiver.