McCaskill Presses Obama on Climate Plan

Sen. Claire McCaskill was one of nine Democratic lawmakers to sign a letter to President Obama Thursday that says other countries should take a larger role in dealing with climate change.

"Poorly designed climate policies could jeopardize US national interests by imposing burdens on US consumers, companies and workers without solving the climate challenge," the Democratic Senators wrote. "Engaging developing nations will be especially important as they represent half of global emissions today and are expected to account for nearly all of the growth in future emissions," they added.

The New York Times notes the Senators are mostly from industrial states or regions "heavily dependent on coal for power." The Senators said they would support climate legislation if all nations are held to such stringent limits on emissions.

The letter to Obama comes just days before the United Nations climate change talks in Copenhagen.

PLUS: GOPers SEIZE on E-MAILS

Sen. Kit Bond has joined other Republicans in blasting hacked e-mails that show climate data was manipulated. Bond called it "a pattern of egregious misbehavior by scientists."

Blunt Comfortable With Nuclear Plant in the Ozarks

Congressman Roy Blunt said he would be comfortable with the presence of a nuclear power plant in the Ozarks, but continued to stress the importance of coal-generated power as an energy source.

"I'd be comfortable with a plan. I'd be comfortable in an expansion of the plan at Fulton," Blunt said, when asked about nuclear.

Blunt made the comments in a wide-ranging interview with KY3 News earlier this week.

*EXCHANGE EXCERPT ABOVE*

ALSO: CAP & TRADE

Sen. Lindsey Graham is working with Sen. John Kerry on an attempted compromise energy plan in the U.S. Senate. Asked about that effort, Blunt said, "I'd have to see it first. But I'm for more American energy of all kinds."

On Coal: "We should still be using it as a resource . . ."

Blunt Responds To 'Stain' Ad

Congressman Roy Blunt defended himself against the third television ad launched against him this year by the League of Conservation Voters, which is targeting U.S. House members who voted against cap and trade legislation this summer.

The ad, called 'Stain', is a brutal depiction of the Congressman at a campaign event, sliming supporters and even a child, with the stain of oil.

"Particularly that part where I leave oil all over the little child, I didn't think that was a very good part," Blunt said with a smile, before outlining the League's connection to his likely Democratic opponent, Robin Carnahan.

*WATCH MORE Q & A ABOVE*

WATCH THE KY3 NEWS @ 10 REPORT HERE

WATCH THE 'STAIN' AD HERE

ALSO: PEW ENVIRONMENT GROUP POLL
67% Missourians Favor
-Forced Emission Reductions
-Tapping Alternative Energy

Questions Don't Factor in Cost to Consumer

POLL Details HERE

"The vast majority of people in this state are opposed to this tax on coal generated electricity," said Blunt. "So they know I'm voting in their interest."
***
LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS:
"This is going to cost the average household just a couple hundred dollars a year," said spokesman Mike Palamuso. "What we can't afford is to continue spending $1 billion dollars a day on foreign oil. What we can't afford is to lose our competitive edge in the international marketplace by letting the clean energy jobs of the future go overseas."

Veterans for Cap & Trade in Springfield Tuesday

A group of military veterans will stop in Springfield Tuesday as part of a nationwide bus tour to talk about the dangers climate change present to national security.

"Operation Free," will hold a town hall style meeting Tuesday at 12:30 p.m. at the Goad Ballinger American Legion Post 69 at 149 Memorial Plaza in Springfield.

In conjunction with the tour, VoteVets.org is running radio ads in Springfield, Columbia, and St. Joseph featuring a local veteran urging Senators McCaskill and Bond to support clean energy legislation in Congress.

VoteVets.org, Veterans for Green Jobs and the Truman National Security Project are all sponsors of the tour. Similar stops are scheduled in St. Louis, Jefferson City and Kansas City over the next two days.

Builders Fear Cap and Trade Could Slow Green Home Growth

The first few homes in Springfield's first EnergyStar subdivision are almost complete, but builders are already worried that pending legislation known as "cap and trade" will be a barrier to future projects.

WATCH THE KY3 NEWS @ 10 REPORT HERE

Some Springfield builders don't want any new government regulations forcing them to do more.
The cap and trade bill that's already cleared the U.S. House includes new national building standards that would require builders to go even further.

"Essentially it transplants the most stringent requirements in the U.S. to the rest of the U.S," Homebuilders Association president Matt Morrow said.

But St. Louis developer Jim Trout argued national standards are needed to produce significant energy savings.

"We know what we can do with houses. We know if we're all doing it next year, it's going to drive the cost down, it'll restore confidence in homebuilding," said Trout, who readily expects building costs to increase by 2 percent. "We're going to have to bite the bullet and make an investment in our future."

Ad Targets Blunt on Cap & Trade, While Carnahan's Position Remains Unclear

A new ad by the League of Conservation Voters focuses on the campaign contributions Congressman Roy Blunt has received from energy companies and links the donations to his vote against controversial energy and climate legislation, also known as "cap and trade."

The fairly boilerplate attack ad begun airing Tuesday in Columbia-Jefferson City, Kansas City and Springfield media markets.

"They sent in their lobbyists, they contributed to your campaign . . . And when it was time to vote for the Clean Energy and Security Act, you voted 'NO,'" charges the ad.

*WATCH THE AD HERE*

The ad claims that cap and trade legislation would create 1.7 million new jobs, but it cites the liberal think tank, Center for American Progress, to get to that number. The problem is that while even some Republicans have acknowledged the legislation would create a bundle of new "green jobs," other manufacturing jobs could be lost due to higher energy costs.

Ozarks area utilities have also estimated that the cap and trade legislation would add about $20 a month to the bill of residential customers. WATCH THE KY3 NEWS REPORT HERE.

AND: Congressman Blunt has said cap and trade would also increase costs disproportionately on Midwest Farmers. "Their electricity they use would go up. The diesel fuel they use would go up. The nitrogen fertilizer they use would go up, and probably everything they buy would go up, because our manufacturing costs would increase," Blunt told KY3.

***

PLUS: ROBIN CARNAHAN HASN'T TAKEN A POSITION

LAST WEEK: The Associated Press reported Carnahan declined in an interview to say whether she would have voted for the House-passed legislation, but she added that it should probably be changed by the Senate. "We need to do something to have homegrown energy that makes us so we're not so dependent on these foreign petro dictators controlling our economic destiny," Carnahan said.

"In what’s become a growing pattern, Robin Carnahan is unable – or unwilling -- to offer even basic details on her positions on key issues other than to say 'we need to do something,'" said National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Brian Walsh.

Nixon Signs Energy Legislation

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) - Gov. Jay Nixon has signed legislation allowing utilities to charge customers for energy-savings programs.

State utility regulators already have allowed some utilities to factor the cost of their energy savings initiatives into the basic rates they charge customers.

The legislation signed Monday specifically allows utilities to recoup their costs for such programs and requires them to be listed as a separate line-item on electric bills.

Some utility officials and consumer advocates say the new law ultimately should save people money. That's because the energy-savings programs are intended to prevent or delay the need for new power plants, which would be more costly for customers to finance.

"Missourians spend approximately $20 billion each year on all of our energy needs and import nearly 95 percent of the primary energy sources we use. By becoming more energy efficient and reducing our expenditures on energy, we keep more of these energy dollars in Missouri’s economy and in Missourians' pockets," said Gov. Nixon in a statement.

NRDC Study: Ozarks Would Benefit From Alternative Fuels

PLUS: CAP & TRADE

BOND BLASTS TOWERING BILL --
COST ESTIMATES VARY FROM $6 SAVINGS TO $20 HIKE

Parts of the Ozarks are ripe to develop alternative fuels to coal -- such as wind power and biogas -- according to a new study of Missouri energy commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

The report argues that the state's rural areas could take advantage of new climate and energy policy commonly known as "cap and trade," which recently passed the U.S. House. The legislation limits carbon emissions and encourages the development of renewable fuels. But Ozarks utility companies have warned the current bill would raise customer utility rates significantly.

Martin Cohen, who wrote the NRDC report, estimated that Missouri's fossil fuel bill adds up to about $3,000 a person each year. "If a small faction of that went to developing local renewables, it would create thousands of jobs," Cohen said in a conference call with reporters.

The study finds that northern Barry County, southern Lawrence County and southern Dade County are areas that produce the wind speeds necessary to generate power. Twenty-five hundred square miles in 27 Missouri counties are identified in the study as prime areas for wind power production.

The report also identifies 50 counties with livestock operations large enough to support biogas production, including Camden and Cedar.

The problem, according to the report's author, is that Missouri lags behind other states in tapping these resources.

For instance, while Iowa generates almost 3,000 mega watts of wind power, Missouri only produces about 163.

"It would not create a great deal of development . . . to create a lot of jobs," Cohen said.

The lack of a marketplace is also a barrier, according to NRDC spokesperson Tony Wyche. "Without some incentive to produce clean, renewable energy, such as a cap and trade bill, there is also no incentive to invest in it," said Wyche, who also serves as a spokesperson for Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Robin Carnahan.

According to an NRDC analysis, the cap and trade legislation could save Missourians an average of $6.32 on their utility bills by 2012. That's a stark difference from the $20 hike many Ozarks area utilities estimate will be tacked onto customer bills if the legislation is enacted in its current form.

The impact of the legislation is widely disputed from the Ozarks to Washington. Even Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill has voiced concerns about the cost on the coal-dependent state she represents.

Senior Senator Kit Bond has been much more vocal and adamant in his opposition, recently stacking all the different versions of the House bill in front of colleagues, which added up to more than 6-thousand pages.

"What needles are the majority trying to hide in the haystack?" Bond said, noting that 300 pages were added during a 3 a.m. committee hearing.

Bond has made the case that push to clean the air has been cloudy.

"The American people and my Missouri constituents deserve to know why it takes 1,427 pages to address energy issues," Bond asked.

Even without Bond, the climate for cap and trade remains a rough sell for Senate Democrats because many of their members come from states that produce a use coal.

According to Reuters, among changes that could be sought to win broader support for the bill are less ambitious carbon emission reduction goals, the inclusion of nuclear power as an alternative energy source, and tougher regulation of the pollution permits that companies could trade to each other.

Bond: Public Healthcare Option Would Bankrupt Private Insurance in 1 Year

ALSO CLAIMS THERE'S NOT A GLOBAL WARMING CRISIS

Using stark and unambiguous language, Sen. Kit Bond predicted that a public government-run healthcare option would bankrupt private insurance companies within one year of its implementation.

"If you try a government run option, everybody knows that within a year or less, it would drive the private sector out, and they would bankrupt the private companies because they don't pay taxes, they can subsidize their patients . . .," Sen. Bond said to reporters in Springfield this week.

ON THE CAP & TRADE PLAN that passed the House, Bond took numerous shots at comments President Obama made during the campaign. He said the energy and climate legislation would be "a disaster" for Missouri that would drive jobs out of the state.

Bond also seemed to say that the global warming crisis is being grossly overblown.

"But to put a punitive tax on where there is not a crisis in global warming, that makes absolutely no sense," Bond said.

***
SKELTON EXPLAINS CAP & TRADE VOTE:

ALSO: Following mounting criticism from state and national Republicans, Congressman Ike Skelton explained his vote on the cap and trade legislation, and in a statement said his vote to send the bill to the Senate "does not give my blessing to any final bill on air pollution regulation."

"I am pleased that HR 2454 would exempt farms from the bill's proposed regulatory framework and would put in place a number of policies sought by and supported by the agricultural community," Skelton explained. "My vote to move HR 2452 to the Senate does not give my blessing to any final bill on air pollution regulation that might be presented to Congress later this year or next year. I will reserve judgment on a final bill until it has been produced."

"We will be wise to remember that energy reform is not just a matter of regulating air pollution, it is also a matter of national security," said Skelton. "There are real national and global security implications when lakes go dry and when oceans rise. As Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, this aspect of climate change worries me."

Both Sides Agree Cap & Trade Would Raise Ozark Utility Bills

Local utility companies worry climate and energy legislation now heading to the U.S. Senate would force them to raise customer rates dramatically. But supporters argue the long-term savings environmentally and financially would be much greater.

WATCH THE KY3 NEWS @ 10 REPORT HERE

COSTS WILL GO UP -- BUT HOW SOON WILL THEY COME BACK DOWN?

"The monthly increase on the average residential customers bill would be $20 per month, almost immediate in 2012," Duane Highley of Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. estimates.

"It's going to be an incremental $15 dollars, and then we should be ramping back down," said Jonathan Conrad of Springfield's MoveOn.org chapter.

ALSO: Sierra Club Reaction

"I am no fan of the watered down version of Waxman-Markey, and quite frankly, I suspect that its impact both financially and environmentally will be nominal at best for at least 10 years," said Brian Hamburg.

*CLARIFICATION: Hamburg e-mailed The Notebook Friday to say his comments are his personal views and do not necessarily represent the views of the Sierra Club

NRCC Targeting Skelton on Cap & Trade

Do national Republicans really see Congressman Ike Skelton as vulnerable?

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) is targeting 13 Democrats with radio ads and robo-calls over their support of the energy bill, including Skelton.

POLITICO's Josh Kraushaar writes: "Of note is that four of those targets – Boucher, Skelton, Gordon and Snyder – have faced next to no competition in recent years, but Republicans believe their energy vote could potentially put their conservative-minded seats in play next year."

UPDATED 4:10 PM

Below is the script of the radio ad currently running in Jefferson City:

ANNCR: Nancy Pelosi just passed her number one legislative priority….it’s a radical plan to implement a National Energy Tax across America.

They call it Cap and Trade. But make no mistake…it’s a massive new tax.

Just ask President Obama.

OBAMA: “Under my plan, of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

ANNCR: Say that again, Mr. President?

OBAMA: “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

ANNCR: Experts say it would cost Western Missouri over 2,500 jobs.

But Congressman Ike Skelton voted for the National Energy Tax.

Skelton voted in lock step with Nancy Pelosi.

Just like he did on the wasteful stimulus plan….and on 98 percent of the votes this year.

Ike Skelton and Nancy Pelosi. More taxes. More spending. Less jobs.

Call Ike Skelton at 202-225-3121. Tell him to stop voting with Nancy Pelosi and start voting for Missourians instead.

Striking Ike

The Missouri Republican Party has issued a rare attack on Rep. Ike Skelton following his vote for an energy-climate bill that narrowly cleared the U.S. House Friday.

The vote on the legislation was 219-212.

44 Democrats voted against it; 8 Republicans voted for it.

Missouri Republican Party Chair David Cole said Skelton's vote shows he's completely "lost touch" with his district.

"After more than three decades in Washington, Representative Ike Skelton has completely lost touch with the families, farmers, and businesses in his district. Skelton is complicit in yet another Washington power-grab. Just like the auto bailouts, the so-called stimulus bill, and the proposed government takeover of health care, the government is using ‘global warming’ as an excuse to assert more control over private business and industry—and Skelton’s decision to vote for the massive energy tax will end up costing Missourians every time they turn on the lights or drive a car," said Cole in a statement released Friday.

"Sadly, this was another vote about politics, not people. Skelton decided it was easier to side with East and West Coast liberals like Nancy Pelosi than to do what was right for hardworking Missourians. The people of Missouri never asked for—nor can they afford—this legislation which has been called 'the biggest tax in American history," he added.
***
Here's how it's being covered:

POLITICO: ". . . a major victory for President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that left Republicans fuming about a “national energy tax” they said would exacerbate the nation’s economic woes."

NEW YORK TIMES: "The vote was the first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change . . . [It] could lead to profound changes in many sectors of the economy, including electric power generation, agriculture, manufacturing and construction."

ATLANTIC POLITICS: "How much would you pay for cap-and-trade? About $19 a month? Then you're an average American. That's according to this fancy graph (after the jump) drawn up by Nate Silver based on a Washington Post poll."

MSNBC: "Now, the heavy lifting moves to the Senate. And it's not going to be easy. It will likely be reworked before it eventually comes to a vote after the July 4th recess in the other chamber."

Webster/Laclede County Electric Line Up Against Dem Energy Bill

Officials from Webster Electric Cooperative and Laclede Electric Cooperative tell The Marshfield Mail that Democratic legislation aimed at curbing greenhouse gases "will do nothing to fix a more imminent threat than pollution – the availability of electricity."

"Legislators aren’t calling it a tax, but that’s exactly what it is," said Byron Dudley, Laclede Electric Cooperative public relations manager.

"The thing is, the money is not going to go to solving the issue," said Webster Electric Cooperative manager Tom Houston, adding that customers could see rate increases between $20 and $50 dollars a month if the legislation passes.

Read the entire Marshfield Mail piece HERE.

PLUS: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leaders are racing to round up votes needed to pass a comprehensive energy and global warming bill.

Congressman Roy Blunt is quoted in the NYT article, saying the bill would raise energy prices "from Pittsburgh to Wyoming" because those parts of the country are most reliant on coal.

"Only liberals in this Congress would figure out a way not to use this," Blunt said about coal use in the bill.

New Ad Targets Blunt on Cap & Trade Bill

A new ad targeting Roy Blunt in his home district for his "NO" vote on the Democratic energy bill is obviously political -- but is it fair?

"Americans are coming together . . . supporting a new clean, energy future . . .

". . . But Roy Blunt said no," booms the new 30-second spot paid for by the League of Conservation Voters.

And Republicans aren't the lone targets -- an Arkansas Dem is also on their radar

And HERE is why the League has teamed up with Vote Vets & Builders for the ad

WATCH THE KY3 NEWS @ 10 REPORT HERE

The ad, not surprisingly, fails to point out the reason Blunt voted no on the bill in committee. The reason is because of the "cap and trade" plan. Under the proposal, energy companies would need to buy permits to emit carbon dioxide. The bill would make a fixed number of permits available. If a company emits less than expected, they could sell the permits to others for profit. (The Economist has a thorough write-up of the details HERE.)

The goal: to encourage companies to reduce emissions -- and in the long-run reduce costs. (The Marginal Revolution does some cost-benefit calculations.)

Raising energy costs is a non-starter for Congressman Blunt --- who points to a Energy Policy Group study, now being touted by the Missouri Public Utility Alliance, showing that the plan could raise utility rates by 40 percent in Missouri by 2015.

BLUNT CAMPAIGN STATEMENT:

"We know that Roy Blunt is being targeted for early attack because he is the Republican most feared by Robin Carnahan who has spent her entire campaign hiding from Blunt, the news media and voters," said spokesman Rich Chrismer. "The ad says wrongly that Roy opposes things that he supports. Roy Blunt says 'yes' to cleaner, more affordable American energy and more production here at home, and 'yes' to more renewables and more conservation," he added.

"Roy Blunt opposes this backdoor energy tax, and even offered amendments to suspend it if rates were to increase by 10 or 20 percent, in addition to suspending the tax if rates increased by 100 percent. The Democrats were nearly unanimously opposed to these amendments," Chrismer went on.

Also notable is that Blunt's potential Democratic opponent for U.S. Senate hasn't explicitly endorsed the proposal either:

"Robin hopes that the Congress will get this finished and get it right this year," said Tony Wyche, spokesman for Robin Carnahan's campaign. "She hopes they can work together to find a bipartisan solution to help decrease dependence on foreign oil, create jobs, and curb pollution - without sticking consumers with the bill."

Blunt Greenhouse Gas Amendment Fails

An amendment by Congressman Roy Blunt to abandon a cap-and-trade system if electricity rates increase was rejected by the House Energy and Commerce Committee in a vote that mostly broke among party lines.

The legislation at hand would set limits on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and allow companies to buy and sell pollution permits. Blunt says Missouri utility regulars estimate the legislation would increase rates by as much as 40 percent.

Read the Bloomberg piece HERE.

***

"We must look at the real ramifications this bill will have on our already struggling economy," Blunt said. "The bill the Committee is debating can best be described as a national energy tax. It will kill jobs, make America less competitive and punish everyone from families to small businesses and manufacturers by forcing electricity rates to spike. My amendment would serve as an emergency exit from this damaging backdoor energy tax."

Read more of Blunt's view HERE.

Ron Paul Group Upset With Blunt-MoveOn Meeting

Missouri's Campaign for Liberty group is blasting Congressman Roy Blunt for his staffers meeting with MoveOn.org.

In a blogpost on their site, Paul Hamby writes: "Congressman Blunt, We should ABOLISH the Department of Energy. They have accomplished nothing in their 30 years of existence."

On Monday, The Notebook reported that two Blunt staffers agreed to meet with Springfield members of MoveOn.org about energy policy and that MoveOn leader Jonathan Conrad was "satisfied" with the meeting.

"Do you recall that we had nearly $5 per gallon gas recently and we have not built a new Nuclear Power Plant in America in all the years that you were in Washington? We should start that budget cutting your friend Obama talks about by eliminating the dept of energy," wrote Hamby in an angry response.

"Perhaps you should file in the Democrat Primary where your agenda of big government and reckless spending belong," Hamby wrote.

Campaign for Liberty is group affiliated with former presidential candidate Ron Paul, with the stated goal of promoting "the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy."

Nixon: Ameren Wouldn't Budge

Governor Jay Nixon suggested Thursday that Ameren UE's unwillingness to negotiate killed a plan that would have allowed the power company to construct a new nuclear plant.

"Adding . . . 15, 20, 30, 40 percent to businesses and individuals bills in the short run in this economy right now, I don't think is the right thing to do," Nixon said at a media availability in Columbia. "They came in with a position and that position never really shifted," he added later.

The legislative proposal -- that now appears to be dead -- would have allowed the utility to charge customers for some of the costs of the plant before it was fully operational. Nixon said he had hoped for a 2-step process, but said he didn't think Ameren has "ever absorbed that point."

***

A spokesman for the Fair Electricity Rate Action Fund (FERAF), a group that fought to kill the bill, said it was unfortunate Ameren took "a my way or the highway approach."

"If and when Ameren is ever willing to enter into honest negotiations which don’t imperil Missouri’s energy consumers, we at FERAF will be happy to discuss their proposal further," said FERAF spokesman Gregg Keller.

Irl Scissors, Executive Director of Missourians for a Balanced Energy Future (MBEF), replied: "There is no question that Missouri lost today."

"We lost a $6 billion investment in our state that would have created the largest construction project in Missouri history. We lost the creation of 3,000 good-paying jobs in a time of record unemployment. We lost millions of dollars that would have gone to local governments for public safety and education. And equally important, we lost the prospect of expanding reliable nuclear power in Missouri to meet our growing future baseload energy needs," said Scissors.

Turn Off The Lights

Governor Jay Nixon is directing state agencies to implement measures that will reduce energy usage at their buildings by 2 percent annually over the next decade.

The Governor estimates $1 million dollars in savings in the first year alone. His office estimates the state spent about $55 million dollars on energy costs at these buildings. Nixon's executive order applies only to buildings overseen by the Office of Administration.

That means the departments of conservation (ironic) and transportation as well as public colleges and universities.

"As one of the largest employers and energy consumers in the state, Missouri must become a leader in conservation," Gov. Nixon said. "We have a responsibility to set the example for state employees, businesses and citizens across the state. This will be good for taxpayers and the environment, and lead the way toward a brighter, cleaner energy future for all of us."

The Division of Facilities Management will work with the Department of Natural Resources to implement the measure. Weatherization measures are also included in the measure, with the replacement of energy-inefficient light fixtures and implementation of "more efficient means of heating and cooling buildings."

Nixon Energy Announcement Expected Thursday

Governor Jay Nixon is expected to announce "a major energy conservation measure" for Missouri Thursday morning.

***

Nixon is slated to speak at the Missouri Energy Summit at the University of Missouri at 8:30 a.m. He'll speak to early-bird reporters immediately following his remarks.

Nixon's Natural Resources Director Mark Templeton has a background in exploring "green markets for products and services."

During his 2008 campaign, Nixon mostly spoke in general terms about his energy policy, touting wind, solar and renewable fuels. On conservation, he said: "We have to have conservation of the energy we do have, trying to make sure we have more weatherization and more efforts for folks to be more efficient in how they use energy."

For more information on the MU Energy Summit, click HERE.

Roy & Robin: Sifting Through The Early Attacks

WHO'S BLOWING MORE SMOKE?

Blunt on Energy; Carnahan on . . . Anything

A new television ad by the League of Conservation Voters includes a group of over-the-top claims against Congressman and U.S. Senate candidate Roy Blunt.

The ad is meant to attack Blunt's record on "clean energy," but the statements made in the 30-second spot are oversimplified and pretty "clean" of specifics. "Roy Blunt says no to clean energy," booms the voiceover. "No to millions of new jobs," it continues. It goes on to claim he also "voted to hold America back."

All the statements are obviously general enough to scare -- but don't offer any help to voters seeking specifics.

For those, you can turn to Congressman Blunt's opinion piece published in the Kansas City Star Monday that contended President Obama's cap and trade plan will cost taxpayers $3,000 more every year. That claim is also untrue, according to Politifact.com, a group that spends its time tracking the authenticity of statements by politicians.

"The Republicans contend Obama's cap-and-trade policy would impose a $3,128 tax per family. But it's not a tax and it wouldn't cost that much," Politifact writes. Critics call that number overblown, and some estimate the plan would cost around $79 more each year per family. Republicans cite a 2007 MIT study that attempted to figure out the cost. But the author of that study has said the $3,000 number has been greatly exaggerated. Yet it continues to be repeated.

Still, even some Democrats acknowledge that the costs of cap-and-trade would be passed on to consumers via higher gasoline and electric bills. In Wisconsin, the State Journal praised its two Senators for opposing an effort to ram cap-and-trade through without 60 votes.

"If designed well, cap-and-trade legislation could cap carbon emissions and require those companies that exceed the cap to buy or trade credits. It would use market-based principles rather than inflexible regulations," wrote the Journal in a recent editorial.

"But if designed poorly, Wisconsin and other states that rely heavily on coal for energy to power homes, businesses and manufacturing plants could be socked with fat bills that further stall the economy," the paper added.

Blunt's spokesman stood by the $3,000 charge in a statement responding to the television ad Monday afternoon. "This false attack ad for Robin Carnahan is an attempt by a liberal group to get a vote for adding $3,000 a year to family utility bills with a 'cap and trade' energy tax, while also enriching tax-subsidy recipients like Tom Carnahan's company," said spokesman Rich Chrismer.

As noted above, that $3,000 figure is widely under fire.

But Chrismer has a stronger point when he questions Carnahan's position on cap and trade -- or a host of other current hot issues, for that matter.

"Roy and Robin Carnahan have very different positions on energy, and Robin Carnahan's refusal to answer the public's questions is the only thing preventing a series of joint media appearances this year for questions on vital national security issues such as energy," Chrismer said.

Last week, The Star reported that Carnahan dodged questions about legislation that could allow unionization without a secret ballot. "I don't know what the current form of that is," Carnahan said, before continuing to duck a series of questions, according to The Star's reporting.

Blunt has also been critical of Carnahan for her apparent support of the federal stimulus package. But in an interview with The Notebook in Hannibal, Carnahan never specifically said she would have voted for the package.

When asked for a clarification from the Carnahan campaign last week, spokesman Tony Wyche reaffirmed Carnahan's non-position. "She has said that with people hurting as much as they are that doing nothing, as some seem to be arguing was not an option. She also said that she was not there to review each and every item in the bill; that there were many items that deserved to be removed or at least should have received more scrutiny. She's also said that we need to make absolutely sure that anything we do in the name of economic stimulus is actually stimulative and creates jobs," Wyche said.

Not even Senators who have been in Congress for decades are able to read each and every item in a bill; and if Carnahan was there, it would be unlikely she would be able to either. She could make a statement, pledging to do just that. Then again, that would be taking a position.

The argument is that it's too early for specifics, that the public is drained. But the Secretary of State won't be able to get away with these open-ended answers as the calendar creeps closer to 2010.

But the early back-and-forth between Blunt and Carnahan might leave you wondering: What's worse: Exaggerating a claim to make a point or concealing a position to avoid one?