# Yesterday's climate blog highlights 

*Published:* 2010-06-09
*Author:* Rebecca Rasch

*Grist* list five compelling reasons why [a comprehensive climate and energy plan is superior to an energy-only](http://www.grist.org/article/2010-06-07-five-reasons-why-a-comprehensive-climate-and-energy-plan-beats-t/) bill.

> “Anyone contemplating supporting energy-only over a comprehensive bill should bear these facts in mind. And realize that whether your top priority is national security, deficit reduction, job creation, or pollution reduction, a comprehensive bill clean energy and climate bill does a lot more for our country.”

*E2* has [President Obama’s reactions to the Murkowski resolution](http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/102007-obama-threatens-to-veto-murkowski-climate-plan-as-lobbying-intensifies). The White House said that the resolution would

> “increase the Nation’s dependence on oil and other fossil fuels and block efforts to cut pollution that threatens our health and well-being.”

The statement says that:

> “Obama’s senior advisors would recommend that he veto the measure.”

*Green* also has the story of how the White [House is less than pleased with the Murkowski resolution](http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/white-house-threatens-to-veto-move-to-thwart-e-p-a/).

> “\[The\] White House says that if the resolution, scheduled for debate and a vote on Thursday, reaches President Obama’s desk, his advisers will recommend that he veto it. That’s what is known as a veto threat and in this case it is not a bluff.”