Op-ed on climate change bill

[ProSense]

here

[karynnj]

1. Wow!

I just saw this, but you beat me. It is cool that it is with Lindsey Graham, who I never heard as positive on climate change. (Maybe he can get his grumpy buddy McCain on board)

[ProSense]

2. I was thinking the same thing.

Where is McCain? He has strayed so far he is becoming irrelevant.

[karynnj]

3. I like the way Kerry started this

very clearly stating the basic Democratic positions and the Republican ones - then arguing they can accomplish both.

With Kyoto, 4 months before the accord was negotiated, the Senate passed the Byrd/Hagel amendment that said that for a treaty to be acceptable it had to include third world countries and it had to insure that it would not disadvantage the US economy.

At Bali, Kerry was among those who got the language requiring "common but differentiated responsibilities" - meaning that third world countries will have goals, but, as is fair, they won't be the same as the first world. This deals with the first priciple. Here, the call for taxes on products from countries not complying would eliminate the second.

As to McCain, he has been pathetic on this. In one article on Kerry/Boxer, he made a comment that he had been there years ago (implying Kerry and Boxer weren't) and mentioning his legislation - ignoring that Kerry/Snowe and Sanders/Boxer were at the same time. None even were voted on.

[beachmom]

4. Here is an article on Politico about it. What great news that Graham is on board!!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28158.html

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina publicly announced his support for climate legislation on Sunday in an op-ed column with Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.


"Our partnership represents a fresh attempt to find consensus that adheres to our core principles and leads to both a climate change solution and energy independence," the two senators wrote in The New York Times. "It begins now, not months from now — with a road to 60 votes in the Senate."


Graham's support is a major win for climate supporters, who are seeking Republican support for climate legislation. A climate bill passed the House in last June, but prospects for the legislation have dimmed amid the contentious health care debate.

[beachmom]

5. Only one diary about this on dkos. God that site sucks.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/11/792041/-Climate:-Graham-Joins-Kerry.-Nuclear,-CCS,-drilling-deals-hinted.

It did not make the Rec list. Where are the front pagers? This is big news. Significant news.

I am beginning to think that apart from environmental sites, the netroots may prove to be useless on this issue. They either aren't interested or don't get that you have to compromise in order to have a prayer of passing anything.

[ProSense]

6. This one did:

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John Kerry (D-MA): "Yes, We Can"

[beachmom]

7. Thank you. Although A Siegal can sometimes be off putting, I think

overall he will be a good "leader" on dailykos for climate change.

I think people are having trouble wrapping their minds around bipartisanship. It's not just Republicans who have been cool to the idea.

[ProSense]

8. Just came across this piece on HuffPo

Sen. Lindsey Graham Crosses the Climate Rubicon

[karynnj]

13. Looking for more posts on this, I found the mirror image of the angry left DU poster

Posted because it is amusing how parallel there comments are to our freepers.

"Lindsey Graham has become the latest in a long line of pathetic, testosterone bereft, excuses for a leader, exhibited by a Republican party that seems intent on becoming “Democrat lite”."

<snip>
"Over the last few weeks I have come to understand that the Republican party leadership no longer even begins to reflect my views or positions on almost any topic. And, even though there are areas where we theoretically agree – they don’t actually DO anything to further a traditional conservative agenda. I’ve given up on Republicans – which leaves me feeling curiously adrift. Democrats at this point are functionally insane. Republicans think they’re in a beauty pageant – they just don’t want to upset the judges. Libertarians mostly want to smoke dope. Is there any group or organization anywhere who actually wants to support and fight for traditional conservative ideas?"

http://lonestartimes.com/2009/10/11/lindsey-graham-becomes-a-soulless-sellout/

From questioning masculinity, the party Lite meme, no one represents me, the other side is insane - they are all here.

[ProSense]

9. Good coverage

here

[karynnj]

10. That is a great op, which really highlights the importance

(Some of the responses are discouraging in terms of the left not having any idea that Kerry's credentials here FAR exceed Obama's and Clinton's (!). The author though is very very clear that Kerry's passion on this is one reasons it may happen.

He is right that this does change the game, especially if the group of Republicans mentioned join him. (Alexander and Voinivich are on SFRC )

[beachmom]

11. Prominently displayed on TPM now:

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/graham-and-kerry-call-for-bipartisan-action-on-climate-change.php

Lot of dumb comments. I posted a response.

In fact, TPM is not a great "community blog". A lot of really bad commenters. Not as bad as HuffPo, but worse than dkos & DU, and that is saying something.

[karynnj]

12. I don't know why, but my user login there was "disabled"

I don't think I did anything wrong - so I think I'll try to set a new one up.

Your comment was great.

[beachmom]

17. Yeah, I think it was a system thing. I also had to create a new one

some time back.

[karynnj]

14. The WSJ chimes in

Oddly looking at their complaints actually makes me see that this is a good deal that could work.

The WSJ does not think they are doing enough to start a "nuclear renaissance".

"Nuclear power did indeed get top billing in the senators’ compromise road map. But it’s still like pulling teeth: Sens. Kerry and Graham talk of “jettison cumbersome regulations” in order to streamline the approval process for new nuclear power plants.

That is a pretty indirect way to tackle one of nuclear power’s biggest problems—higher capital costs because of very long planning and construction times. There’s nothing in the op-ed about expanded loan guarantees, let alone about classing nuclear power as “renewable energy,” both of which would probably do more to sate Republican wishes–and kickstart the nuclear renaissance for real."

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/10/12/climate-roadmap-kerry-and-graham-chart-a-compromise-course-of-sorts/

and they think it is protectionist, which to them (not us) is a sin. They get in a nasty crack that Kerry was against this in the summer (?) - I guess thinking "flip flopper" is a serious attack. They also speak of China and India not liking this - but Kerry has often said that we need their compliance. He did a lot of work on getting language on differentiated goals at Bali and since.

This is less obnoxious to JK than the WSJ has been in the past few months, which is also a good sign.

[karynnj]

15. Atlantic wire has a nice summary of the reaction from others

Their own opinion:
"Conservatives were quick out of the gate to attack the costs of the climate change bill introduced before the Senate in late September. The Kerry-Boxer bill, an ambitious version of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill that passed in the House, has put climate change on the Senate agenda, but few expected any progress before the end of 2009. With Democrats divided, the bill requires genuine bipartisan support. That's why Sunday's op-ed by Senators John Kerry and Lindsey Graham, a conservative Republican from South Carolina, represents a breakthrough toward securing Republican endorsement.

Liberals are enthused. Addressing climate change has been a back-burner issue during the health care fight. (Read up on previous debates over the missed deadline, the similarities to health care battles, and debates over designing a pro-growth plan.) But now, green pundits are debating which Republicans will sign on. On the far end of optimism are those who hope that legislation could be ready before the climate summit in Copenhagen in December."

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Republicans-Warm-to-Climate-Change-Legislation-1271

(posted on GD -P)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8697849

[Inuca]

16. Very interesting stuff

Thanks for the reading links and comments. Graham is an odd bird, often a very annoying one, but a gutsy odd bird in his own way.

My possibly simplistic guess as to why there seems to be so little interest on this on Kos and other similar places is that most of the blogosphere is health care obsessed right now. With HCR out of the way, of climate change is the next "big thing", watch out!

[karynnj]

18. Veterans are touring in support of a bill on climate change

Veteran members of Operation Free are embarking on a 21-state tour to talk to citizens and local community leaders about the looming crisis over climate change and national security. The tour is making stops in Missoula, Helena, and Billings today.

Operation Free veteran Aaron Bailey recently joined Senator John Kerry in unveiling legislation to combat climate change, saying: "There are threats we don’t hear about so often. That’s why we’re here, to bring attention to the double-threat of America’s reliance on fossil fuels, and the national security consequences of climate change that dependence on fossil fuels creates."

Operation Free is a coalition of veterans and national security groups working together to raise public awareness about national security threats posed by climate change and our reliance on fossil fuels. Its goal is to support climate and energy policies that cut carbon pollution and develop clean energy incentives.
<snip>
Group officials say the US spends $1 billion a day buying crude oil from other countries. That puts money into the hands of countries that don’t support us and increases the dangers to our troops overseas. The US military and various national security agencies such as the CIA have warned about grave dangers associated with climate change in the years ahead. Many countries will be unable to cope with a rapidly changing climate, resulting in more unrest and fueling the growth of terrorism.
http://www.keci.com/Veterans-Tour-Against-Climate-Change/5420389

(Cool to see veterans mobilizing to support a Kerry effort.)

[beachmom]

19. An analysis by Newsweek worth checking out:

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/10/14/why-it-s-no-surprise-lindsey-graham-supports-climate-change-legislation.aspx

I realize that one of my Senators, Johnny Isakson, MAY be in play. Building nuclear plants creates jobs. One is supposed to be built in GA. I wonder if what is true for SC, is true for GA.

[karynnj]

20. Want a sign that Kerry's outreach to get business support is working?

This has to be read seeing that it is coming from the right (Fox News). In a way, the complaint that the boardrooms of the country have been taken over by progressives is as silly as the mirror image complaints from people who still are convinced that only Edwards would have saved the country.

Note that some of these businesses mentioned are ones whose executives have spoken before Kerry's committee. It does have some good information that I hadn't seen before on the coordinated effort by businesses.

Anyway, it is amusing reading (or I have a weird sense of humor)

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/10/15/tom-borelli-cap-trade-apollo-ceres/

[beachmom]

22. I think I have the same sense of humor. After reading the first few

paragraphs, I can't stop giggling.

[beachmom]

23. I threw together a diary for the fun of it:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/16/81413/166?new=true

[ProSense]

21. Nice editorial

from the Boston Globe posted here.