The meaningless debate over Lisa Murkowski’s bid to stop the EPA from complying with a Supreme Court order and regulate carbon emissions will take up the whole day in the US Senate. I say “meaningless” because it has no chance of passage, after President Obama’s veto threat. But inside Versailles it’s more important to measure “humiliation” than anything else. And that perception may impact the actual energy debate due later in the summer:

But if the president were forced to use his veto to prevent legislation emerging from a Congress in which his own party enjoys substantial majorities, it would be a humiliation for him and for Democrats on Capitol Hill.

So Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and other Democratic leaders are doing what they can to stop it.

They are floating the possibility of voting on an alternative measure from Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat from the coal state of West Virginia, which they previously refused to grant floor time, Senate sources say.

Organizing for America sent out an action alert to stop the Murkowski resolution, too. The amount of energy wasted on blocking something that will never become law could reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 30%.

As for the notion that Senate passage of the Murkowski bill will lead to no action on a climate bill, well, that’s a case of causation without correlation. The Senate doesn’t have the votes for carbon pricing. Some don’t want the EPA to step in because that would force them to actually do something about carbon, as a response and to pre-empt the command and control approach. This vote merely attempts to relieve pressure. But it doesn’t mean that those same Senators who vote for the Murkowski amendment wouldn’t turn around and vote for an energy bill after it fails; in fact, it may be likely for some Democrats to do so.