This frenzy will last for some time. Congress is still months away from crafting a proposal that could win majority support in the House and 60 votes in the Senate. The issues that the House and Senate must resolve are by now familiar: the role of nuclear power, clean coal, alternative fuels and emissions trading in a U.S. energy program and, most importantly, the depth to which the United States will commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

For the time being, the discussions in Washington will focus on the impact these issues and decisions will have on the U.S. economy and on the global environment. Whatever final bill emerges probably won't constitute a coherent energy policy -- more likely, it will focus squarely on greenhouse gas emissions -- but it will define the parameters of U.S. energy policy in the coming decade. The effects of the eventual U.S. policy obviously will be felt in numerous areas: the kinds of power plants that utilities build, the cars that automakers design, the electronic equipment companies make and possibly the planes people fly will be determined in part by the 2007 debate on climate policy.

Less obvious is the fact that the stakes in the U.S. climate debate are just as high for the rest of the world, which two years ago started to work toward the successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol. All of the bills before the U.S. Congress would commit the country to a course of action through 2050. This timeline is quite similar to that being discussed in international forums, so in effect, U.S. lawmakers are about to engage in debate over same issues as the negotiators working under the existing treaty.

While the U.S. move would appear to benefit the negotiators, the matter from this point gets more complicated. Debate over Kyoto's successor, the so-called "second commitment period," has come in fits and starts, since most parties to the existing climate regime have felt powerless in the face of U.S. indifference to international climate talks and the exemption of China and India from meaningful commitments. The European Union in particular has made the U.S. absence from negotiations a major political issue, and has called talks toward a second commitment period meaningless without Washington's involvement. While European heads of state have agreed to let the United States work on climate issues outside the Kyoto process, the majority of voters in the EU remain dead set against the U.S. position. Climate change -- and Washington's non-participation in international talks -- has become a major issue in European politics, and the region's leadership on the issue internationally is a matter of personal pride and identity for many Europeans.

By setting a greenhouse gas emission target for the next 40 years, the United States will be turning the tables on the EU. Ultimately, the decision facing EU politicians is whether to accept a backseat role on climate change negotiations or to benefit from maintaining their leadership role -- at the cost of reaching any meaningful international agreements on the issue.

The U.S. Legislation

Four "comprehensive" climate change bills -- defined as bills that cover all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions -- and two industry-targeted pieces of legislation have been introduced, or will make their way to the Senate within the next month or two. These bills share a common characteristic: All seek, for the near term, a gradual decrease in how much carbon dioxide is emitted for each unit of gross domestic product, followed by escalating cuts in emissions levels in the coming decades. Almost every piece of legislation extends its mandate beyond 2030 -- most of them to 2050.

At a certain level, making promises about U.S. emissions in 2050 is as much fantasy as planning. For most people, the world in 2050 is impossible to envision, as are the details surrounding energy use and sourcing. Still, the commitments being sought are commensurate with scientists' determinations of what must be done to avoid realization of the worst fears about climate change.

The most modest curbs on emissions would come with legislation currently being floated by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.). This legislation, which is still in the works, would stabilize emissions at 2013 levels by 2020. Under his proposal, U.S. emissions would stabilize at 2007 levels by 2050.

Three other Senate bills -- sponsored respectively by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.); John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine); and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) -- would cut emissions much more significantly.