Digging through an old laptop, I found some notes from the last time Sen. Lieberman offered his energy-rationing bill, then called McCain-Lieberman.

We are told that Sen. McCain might not be around to cast a vote on the bill in its present incarnation – in fact, none of the three remaining presidential candidates are likely to leave the trail to weigh in on the supposed remedy to the supposed greatest threat facing mankind.

This is too bad, because we might possibly hear colloquies with Sen. McCain seeking clarification, or at least an update, of his prior arguments in favor of the legislation — essentially “but everybody else is doing it!” which, while unsupportable then, is absurdly outrageous today.

For example, consider his angry riposte to then-Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.): “I will tell you another loser, and that is the truth — that is the truth. The truth is, I say to the Senator from New Mexico, the European countries are meeting Kyoto emissions targets. They are meeting them.”

Inhofe countered with facts and figures, prompting an angry McCain to fire back, with a by-then-already-typical insistence that anyone who disagrees with him is biased. He then inserted into the record a letter from a Member of the European Parliament whom McCain kindly elevated to chairman of that body’s Environment Committee (Anders Wijkman; he wasn’t, had never been, and still isn’t the chair — though he did circulate a letter last Spring trying to prohibit a screening of The Great Global Warming Swindle after a panel I served on, as the kind of speech that ought not be allowed in that building).

“Mr. MCCAIN. This is a letter to Senator DOMENICI and Senator BINGAMAN from the chairman [sic] of the Environment Committee of the European Parliament [NB: per the MEP Wijkman, to “be made a part of the Record of your deliberations so as to avoid any misconceptions about climate policy in Europe.”]. Basically, it says — astonishingly, I am shocked — I have reviewed a study prepared by the American Petroleum Institute, that unbiased bystander on this issue, ‘‘claiming that the United States has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions intensity more than most other European Union countries and more than the EU as a whole. Similar claims were apparently repeated on the floor of the U.S. Senate yesterday, including remarks made by Senator Michael B. ENZI . . . While we can not be absolutely sure that the EU will be able to meet its Kyoto target . . . this claim truly misrepresents the performance of the European Union and its member states compared to the United States,’’ which it does.”

No. Actually, it didn’t. The U.S. has outperformed Europe on the emissions-reduction front, with no thanks due to Kyoto or McCain-Lieberman-Warner.

McCain then climbed waaaaay out on that rhetorical limb:

“Mr. President, I have a fact sheet on myth versus fact that responds to some of the statements made on the floor. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: Myth: Most EU–15 countries are way above emissions targets. Fact: The European Environmental Agency (EEA) recently concluded that the EU is on schedule to meet its Kyoto targets. This report analyzed existing and planned policies, including the Kyoto emissions trading measures. When only previously implemented policies were evaluated, the EEA calculated that the EU would not reach its Kyoto targets—reaching 1%, rather than 8%, below 1990 levels. Planned policies such as domestic EU policies (accounting for greater than 7% reductions alone) and international emission reduction projects (for which funds have already been allocated), however, will enable the EU to exceed its 8% goal. Myth: The U.S. beats the EU in reducing GHG emissions Fact: While the U.S. emissions intensity decreased by 17.4 percent in the 1990s, U.S. global warming pollution grew by 14. At the same time, the EU decreased their global warming pollution by 4 percent. Greenhouse Gas intensity does not measure the quantity of global warming pollution reduced. GHG intensity is defined as the ratio of total global warming pollution to total gross domestic product.

Sen. John Kerry then contradicted McCain, in discourse with Sen. Larry Craig:

CRAIG: …But what is the reality? Getting back to 1990 levels. Great Britain isn’t there and can’t get there now, and they are having to ask for greater credits. Italy, in Buenos Aires this winter, told me that because they had shut down a nuclear reactor, they were no longer 3 percent toward compliance, they were 12 percent away. Japan, at the time they ratified Kyoto, I believe was like 5 percent or 6 percent away from meeting 1990 standards. Now they are 13 or 14 percent away. If you are growing the economy under current technology you can’t get where you want to get. KERRY:…The fact is, the consensus hasn’t failed on environment. The countries that signed on to Kyoto have ratified it and are implementing it. Are they going to meet the goals? I admit they are not going to meet the goals—we all understand that [NB: okay, maybe not all] — which is a good reason to go back to the table and begin to negotiate to arrive at an exchange of technologies, at an exchange of science, at a multinational global cooperative effort to try to that was made at Kyoto.

Then Sen. Joe Biden jumped into the fray, also countering McCain’s fantasy, noting “the inability of nations to meet the standards they signed on to Kyoto” (see here and here).

Given that we’re being asked this week to replicate here the glorious success of these Kyoto breast-beaters, I hope we have a chance to find out from Sen. McCain how Europe is doing, since those unreliable so-and-sos have been releasing data every year indicating their emissions are climbing. It would be nice to get the truth of the matter.

A little straight talk might help, too.