Are There GOP Senators Who Will Back the Climate Bill?

In July I speculated that Sen. Lamar Alexander might lead some Republicans to back a climate protection bill if Democratic leaders made some concessions regarding nuclear power. The prospect was tantalizing, as I noted then: "The Democratic caucus is not solid enough on climate issues to presume GOP votes are unneeded. Anyone giving a positive signal is at least worth feeling out."

But Alexander quickly buried that possibility, setting wildly impossible goals for nuclear and ramping up intellectually incoherent attacks on the House climate bill.

Now, the possibility of Republican support for "cap and trade" legislation is getting renewed attention. GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham explicitly raised the possibility of a deal, involving more nuclear power and offshore drilling, and Democratic leaders are hearing him out. ClimateWire reports:

Key Senate Democrats signaled yesterday they are willing to negotiate with Republicans on nuclear power and expanded domestic oil and gas development if it helps in nailing down the 60 votes necessary for floor passage on a comprehensive global warming and energy bill.

...

"A guy like Senator Kerry is looking for coalitions," Graham said. "If you had a bill that would allow for responsible offshore drilling, a robust nuclear power title, I think you could get some Republican votes for a cap-and-trade system."

Graham made similar comments to the Houston Chronicle, which suggested what a deal may look like:

"To get a bipartisan bill on climate change, you're going to have to make it attractive for Republicans to vote for a cap-and-trade system," Graham said.

"There's a way to grow Republican support but it is a give-and-take. Republicans have to give in the area of recognizing that climate change is real and a cap-and-trade system is part of the solution. I'd ask our Democratic colleagues to give on the idea that you can't be serious about climate change solutions if you exclude nuclear power."

Kerry has been in talks with Graham and other Senate moderates over possible compromises.

The current Kerry-Boxer bill includes a modest nuclear section focused mainly on worker training. But nuclear advocates want to see the measure include loan guarantees to propel new plants -- the last one was built in 1990 -- and solutions for one of the biggest issues confounding the industry: how to store spent fuel rods.

I am no shill for nuclear power. We still don't have a nuclear waste solution (nor does nuclear-loving right-wing favorite France), and new plants are extremely costly, not exactly small problems.

But I am also not blind to the fact that we already have nuclear power and it's not going away any time soon. So sinking a climate bill over a nuclear compromise will do nothing to change our current reliance on nukes, while also doing nothing to cut carbon emissions.

The Republican whining about nuclear power has always been strange, because the House climate bill already supports nuclear power. A House aide that worked on the bill said, "twice as many new nuclear plants would be built by 2025 under [the House bill] than without the legislation." All we are debating about is "how much" more nuclear, not "if any."

Coastal drilling, it's a similar story. Is it a waste of time to do more? Of course. There just ain't that much oil.

But we already do some coastal drilling. The question is if we can find a way to permit a little more (note that it would take years before any actual hole got drilled anyway, so it may not be that big a concession) without creating significant environmental problems in exchange for a comprehensive plan to sufficiently cap carbon once for all.

Do I have great confidence that a few conservative Republicans are willing to face down the Teabagger fringe and strike a hard bargain? No. But any feeler is worth exploring.

Do I relish the nature of these potential deals? No. But the climate crisis threat is imminent. And it will be impossible to get the Senate to pass a real carbon cap, as it was in the House, without some unpleasant compromises.

The carbon cap is the ultimate big fish, so we should keep our eye on the ball.

Originally posted at OurFuture.org

 

 

Follow Bill Scher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/billscher

Comments

[leevntheus]

part II

Now most reasonable folks that have more than a fourth grade education can come to a conclusion that things are just not right with our weather systems, energy dependence, and over-all environment; but now, at the advent of a new economic age dawning in which the new currency of the globe could just well turn out to be speculation on carbon credits, we can bet our bottom-use­d-to-be-a-­dollar that Wall St. financiers and Big Energy are looking to get fat.

Not confused yet? Well, didn't you know that trying to save the planet from becoming the last briquette in the solar system's BBQ is going to cost jobs and all of our freedom? That's right. There's already people like

http://energycitizens.org/?gclid=CKzBr_Tptp0CFRESawodmkR8ig

that are determined to scare you out of your pants about climate legislation.
Well if there's one thing we here in America are good at, its taking a good idea and working the "good" right out of it.

So c'mon Sens. Kerry and Graham, let's get to it. Have the big boys over to the tap and see what THEY have in mind...before it's too late.

[leevntheus]

Today, a few more prominent Senators have thrown their support behind climate legislation and carbon trading schemes. In today's New York Times, Sen. Graham, R-S.C. joined Sen. Kerry, D-Mass. in authoring an op-ed piece in which each of them calls for "action on legislation".

The senators are attempting to coax big business to the legislative table before agency regulation takes over and leaves industry out in the proverbial field alone. As IF.

"The message to those who have stalled for years is clear: killing a Senate bill is not success; indeed, given the threat of agency regulation, those who have been content to make the legislative process grind to a halt would later come running to Congress in a panic to secure the kinds of incentives and investments we can pass today. Industry needs the certainty that comes with congressional action."
A shot across the bow? I think not. More a public call out to the titans of everything big about American Industry.
"Hey guys, if you wanna get in on fixing this thing for yourself, you'd better start writing checks to our campaigns and lobbying now for how you want the legislation to read."
If the current health care legislation fiasco is any indicator of progress on climate change and cap and trade law making, one thing is certain - it will be as convoluted and complicated as possible, and in the end Main St. America will pay and Wall St. will roll.

[realpolitic]

No GOP senators will back the climate bill. You know this whole concept of science is sort of new and unproven and it really has not been established yet that that the earth revolves around the sun. Conservatives are just waiting for the evidence to come in and, until then, the biblical narrative is still divine truth.

[sethdayal]

"....We still don't have a nuclear waste solution (nor does nuclear-loving right-wing favorite France), and new plants are extremely costly, ..."

New nuclear plants can be mass produced $1000 a kilowatt according to Westinghouse and they backed that up with a sale to “right wingers” in China 4.8 gigawatts for $5.3 billion. Areva recently quoted Ontario Hydro 3.3 gigawatts of nukes for $7 billion even with a repressive anti nuclear pro coal regulatory regime and extended that bid to cover all costs including fuel for sixty years for $24 billion - that's 1.5 cents a kilowatt hour.

If you convert to baseload equivalents “right wing” proposals for wind and solar plant are ten times the cost of nuclear power.

The Nuclear waste problem is blown well out of proportion by right wind propaganda from Big Oil/Coal and reproduced by astroturfers in the Green movement. All of it can be reused as reprocessed fuel in Gen 3.5 nukes,or as fuel in generation four nukes like Sandia's new product. The tiny bit of Gen 4 nuclear waste is no more dangerous than the original uranium. Mid Ocean clay deposit storage has also been proved in as more effective than ground storage except for the reuse factor. All of France's nuclear waste after producing 80% of its power for the last 50 years with nuclear, would cover a soccer stadium one foot deep and all of it is reusable as fast reactor fuel.