Loading ...
SENATOR WILL ONLY SUPPORT CAP-AND-TRADE LEGISLATION IF DEMS COMPROMISE
As much as his detractors are trying to say otherwise, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham is not supporting federal cap-and-trade legislation.
Graham made that crystal clear Thursday when he said he would have voted against legislation passed out of Sen. Barbara Boxer’s Environment and Public Works Committee.
“There are simply not the votes to pass this bill through the Senate,” Graham said. “If the Boxer bill were to come to the Senate floor as written, I would vote “no.”
Boxer’s bill would reduce greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020. But Republicans, including Graham, said the cost analysis was incomplete.
Graham has said the only way he would support a cap-and-trade bill would be if Democrats made a compromise in the interest of national security.
“Here’s what I need for me to support a climate change bill: I need an offshore drilling provision that would allow us to increase our inventories and generate money to create jobs and create more domestic capacity — not just some drilling, but aggressive drilling,” Graham said last month, noting that the U.S. has sent $440 billion overseas to buy oil from “some of the worst people in the world.”
Yet groups like the “American Energy Alliance (AEA)” are running ads blasting Graham for supporting the legislation.
Why would they so blatantly lie about Graham’s position? Check back for more on that later…
Photo: AP
http://www.fitsnews.com/2009/10/29/top-secret-far-left-comes-to-grahams-defense/
Al Bundy — Check back here a little later to find out more about the groups attacking Graham. Let’s see if Bill Folks will write about those, too.
I really don’t understand how you continually support someone like Graham, who, as much as you would like to defend him, strays from the GOP line frequently, and continue to act like you actually know what conservatism is. I mean, you blast DeMint on a consistent basis. Are you serious dude? I really don’t think you actually know what you’re talking about
Adam,the connections Mr. Folks makes between Team Obama and the ad campaign supporting Senator Graham are very clear – to me, at least.
Regardless of the group running ads against/attacking the Senator, what do you and the Palmetto Scoop dispute in Mr. Folks postings?
I, and I’m sure other loyal readers of this site would be very interested in your view on those connections.
Fred,
I’m a common sense conservative… someone who actually thinks and doesn’t follow blind ideologies.
Let’s compare a list of Senator Graham’s accomplishments with Senator DeMint’s accomplishments.
Graham is a statesman who gets things done, DeMint is an obstructionist who has accomplished absolutely nothing. It’s that simple.
- A.F.
And what about a response to my question, Adam?
Al — Here’s my response: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
May God bless ANY Senator or Representative that obstructs unconstitutional legislation–like Lindsey Gaham’s cap and trade which he has taken ownership of in a very obvious display of his surrender to enviro-fascism. Green Heil!
Gaham plays the same game every time. He teases and flirts with the purty Dems across the aisle. He then worms his way into some deal with them so that he can get something for his constituents–the mega corporations or other special interests–and then he votes for it.
There’s no real surrender on the “other side” needed. It’s just that Wee Lil’ Lindsey wants a present included before he’ll vote for it. Every bill is Christmas for him. He sets himself up to leverage the middle ground and uses that to get attention and sell his votes.
I’ve called every back-stabbing vote he’s made lately on the high profile issues. He’s that easy to predict.
Isn’t his behavior obvious?
Huh?
In the first paragraph of your post, you say “As much as his detractors are trying to say otherwise, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham is not supporting federal cap-and-trade legislation.”
In the sixth paragraph of your post, you quote Graham himself saying, “Here’s what I need for me to support a climate change bill: I need an offshore drilling provision…”
So, Senator Graham, himself, is saying he WOULD SUPPORT cap and trade, as long as there is also offshore drilling in the bill.
How on earth do you reach the conclusion that people who say Graham is in favor of cap and trade are lying?
The evidence you provide make very clear that Graham is fine with cap and trade, his only objection to the climate bill relates to the offshore drilling issue?
Can you explain how you got from point “A” to point “B”?
So, let me get this straight:
You like Graham because he “gets stuff done”. So you’re ok with it even if it means conceding more and more of our rights and driving our country further to the left?
At least DeMint tries to STOP the march of the Left, rather than Graham helping the Dems lead our country down a path that is NOT sustainable.
Agree with Graham that Cap and Trade is wrong
- whether one is for or against emission control
The issues are emission reduction and future energy supply.
Given the uncertainty of the effects of emission reduction on global temperature – and given the expense of emission reduction – the key is
to engage in activites which
1. Are valuable in themselves.
2. Meet emission reduction targets with minimal business disruption and expense.
Sufficient first phase 2020/2030 emission reduction, for 2020 typically quoted at 15-20% reduction, is achieved by acting on electricity generation (coal, gas) and transport (mainly automobiles) alone,
since these 2 sectors account for nearly 80% of CO2 emissions.
This can be done with emission tax (for cars, allowing free choice) and emission limits for CO2 (for electricity generation), without any emission trading.
The focus on electricity and transport gives several advantages:
1. Local environmental benefit from less pollution of sulphur and all else that’s in the emissions, regardless of the less certain or immediate global benefit from CO2 reduction.
2. Electricity supply alternatives which together with improved grid distribution gives better competition and keeps down electricity bills for consumers.
3. Transport alternatives (using electricity, hydrogen and other energy sources), which give variety of choice and competition advantages for consumers, additionally reducing the dependency on oil imports.
4. No trade problems: Unlike Cap and Trade, which involves cement, steel and other industries having to face imports from unregulated countries, the here suggested electricity and transport changes are not just more limited, but also largely local.
In 2020 (and again 2030), from then available evidence, either
1. There is increasing consensus that reduction attempts have no value: In that case little has been lost, since the described changes in electricity and transport industry carry their own benefit, or
2. Consensus remains that CO2 emission reduction should continue, in which case America is on track,
and may continue with more specific emission reduction efforts towards 2050 that extend electricity and transport measures,
and can involve other industries if necessary.
Funding and Impact
Equity and long term loan finance can be used: Long term industrial loans from financial institutions, particularly if federal/state guaranteed, give low yearly interest repayments and lessen the effect on electricity bills or transport cost.
The impact on the businesses is further lessened by the stability and predictability surrounding the funding.
Since only electricity and transport are involved, other business continues as usual and consumers and society in general are spared expense and disruption.
This is even more obvious from having no energy efficiency regulation either.
Compare with
today’s all-encompassing Cap and Trade (emission trading) suggestions,
with unpredictability, expense, and needless disruption from normal business practice on one hand, or unnecessary profiteering from free allowance handouts with little actual emission reduction on the other hand, together with extensive energy efficiency regulation on what
people can or can’t buy and use.
—————————————-
Emission Policy Alternatives
http://ceolas.net/#cce1x
Introduction: The need – or not – to deal with emissions
The Overall Picture
Emission sources, land and ocean cycles, agriculture and deforestation
1. Direct Industrial Emission Regulation
Mandated reduction of CO2, monitored like other emission substances
2. Carbon Taxation
Fuel Tax — Emission Tax
3. Emission Trading (Cap and Trade)
Basic Idea — Offsets — Tree Planting — Manufacture Shift — Fair Trade — Surreal Market — Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs — Allowance Trading — Companies: Business Stability + Cost — In Conclusion
4. Contracted CO2 Reduction
Private companies compete for contracts to lower CO2 emissions.
.
Lindsay Graham was FOR Cap & Trade, before he said he’d vote against it. And I’m sure he’d vote for it, despite being “against” it. Sounds like another notorious flip-flopping Senator…