Over at National Journal’s Energy Expert blog, Amy Harder asks “Should Congress Split Up Energy And Cap-And-Trade?” People who answer yes to this question are not actually interested in passing a climate bill. Stalling this process yet again is an attempt to delay the inevitable as long as possible — nothing more, nothing less.

Predictably, Senator Murkowski supports that approach. Here are some telling parts of her response:

Substance aside, the process was enough to kill the climate bill in the EPW Committee. Climate legislation will require support from both sides of the aisle, but the only bipartisan feature of that bill was the opposition to it. It’s past time to start discussing what comes next.

This sounds like a chicken and egg problem. Senator Murkowski can’t support the bill because it doesn’t have bipartisan support. It doesn’t have bipartisan support because… Senator Murkowski doesn’t support it.

As apparent as it has become that the Kerry-Boxer bill cannot pass the full Senate, legislation developed outside the jurisdictional confines of a committee system has not fared much better in the past either. Proposed immigration reform was developed through a model similar to that which Sens. Kerry and Graham are pursuing. Our immigration policies remain unchanged.

My concerns about these past efforts notwithstanding, they were at least bipartisan. Legislation to address global climate change this Congress has taken the opposite approach. This has resulted in an over simplification of an incredibly complex policy matter – either you support an introduced climate bill, or you’re against protecting the environment. This perception ignores the fact that senators from both parties are concerned about the protection of our environment and the strength of our nation’s economy

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Senator Murkowski will not seriously consider supporting good climate legislation. If anything, she’ll offer her support as bait in order to attract concessions, only to withdraw her support before the vote.