Graham on Climate Change
Today I am flying the South Carolina flag, a patriot flag I fly when politics are mostly calm. Troubled about Senator Lindsey Graham’s (my senator) position of conferring with John Kerry on climate change legislation, I wrote a letter to the Senator expressing my concern for his position and asking for an explanation. I added the numbers for the paragraphs to help with discussion, otherwise the “body” of my post below is the exact wording I received from Senator Graham:
Senator Lindsey Graham
[Letter from Lindsey Graham]
[December 22, 2009]
Dear XXXX
(1) Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on climate change legislation. I appreciate the opportunity to hear from you.
(2) While there is still debate about the causes and impact of climate change, there is no question we have an obligation to reduce carbon pollution. The time has come to address this issue in a responsible way that creates jobs and ends our dependence on foreign oil.
(3) As you know, in recent months there has been a lot of talk surrounding various climate bills. While I oppose the climate measure passed in the House of Representatives earlier this year, the so-called Waxman-Markey bill, and the bill introduced in the Senate by Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer, I do support drafting legislation that expands the role of nuclear power, opens access to outer continental shelf drilling and reduces carbon pollution.
(4) For too long our nation has been dependent on oil and energy from foreign regimes who are not friendly to our national interests. We are more dependent on foreign oil now than at any point in our history. Our growing appetite for energy has also become a various serious national security issue.
(5) By including nuclear power and increased drilling offshore oil and gas is a reasonable climate change bill, we can dramatically improve our energy security and stop sending nearly $1 billion overseas everyday to purchase foreign oil. In addition, offshore drilling provisions can result in hundreds of millions of dollars per year coming into South Carolina through revenue sharing. This money can be used to create private sector jobs, improve our school, repair our states [spelling error is author’s] transportation infrastructure, and pay down our state’s growing debts.
(6) As the largest source of clean energy, nuclear power must be included in the formula to address climate change. Nuclear power represents an efficient, economic and environmentally a conscientious energy source. We must begin to focus on developing new nuclear power plants, creating safe options to minimize nuclear waste, and establishing incentives for low carbon power usage. I believe that leaving nuclear power out of the solution is attempting to solve a problem without utilizing all of our options.
(7) One of the issues that looms large in the climat3e debate and could be potentially devastating to the economy is aggressive Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) action. Without legislation by Congress, the EPA is required to regulate greenhouse gases, an outcome of the 2007 US Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency. This means unelected bureaucrats at the EPA will issue regulations that could cripple our economy. In fact, the EPA took their first step in December when an endangerment finding determined that greenhouse gases are hazardous to human health. My proposal would include preempting EPA action, expanding o0ffshore drilling and jump starting our nuclear energy program. If Congress does not act soon, EPA regulations alone could result in annual cost to our economy that exceeds $600,000.
(8) With successful legislation, South Carolina has a golden opportunity to lead the pack in a new clean energy economy. Our state, which trails in many areas, is uniquely positioned to0 be one of the states to benefit the most from clean energy legislation. Further, South Carolina manufacturers and farmers already creating wind turbines, hydrogen techn90logies, biomass, and other new technologies will prosper under my plan. Investing in new energy technologies will create millions of new jobs and benefit our struggling economy. I have been on the forefront of climate change legislation because I am hopeful that a cleaner, safer and stronger America can become a reality.
(9) Thank you again for taking time to write. If I can be of service to you or your family in the future, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely
Lindsey O. Graham
United States Senator
LOG/cf
The Bottom Line
This is a well-written and well-thought-out response from Senator Graham. (Senator Graham’s comments are in italics). Here are my thoughts, and I would be interested in yours if you care to comment:
Paragraph #2:
- While there is still debate about the causes and impact of climate change, there is no question we have an obligation to reduce carbon pollution. Senator Graham has accepted the premise that there is carbon pollution and that it is harmful. There is simply no proof of this, and as he says “there is still debate” … although by making his statement, in his mind the debate is closed. It is upon this accepted premise that are the basis the rest of Senator Graham’s remarks. (If he KNEW Man-Made Global Warming was a hoax, this letter could not have been written this way).
Paragraph #3:
- I do support drafting legislation that expands the role of nuclear power, opens access to outer continental shelf for drilling and reduces carbon pollution. Reduces carbon pollution … there’s the accepted premise again.
Paragraph #4:
- Yes, and if we “drill here-drill now” … which is a separate legislative issue, this would not be a problem. Supporting Climate Change legislation may include offshore drilling and nuclear power. However along with gaining those, we give up our country to Cap and Trade which will ruin this country. If Senator Graham would simply support drilling and nuclear power but stay away from any and all negotiations which could result in any semblance of Cap and Trade, I would support his position. But to have nuclear power and offshore drilling a “part of” Cap and Trade is not acceptable.
Paragraph #5:
- By including nuclear power and increased drilling offshore oil and gas is a reasonable climate change bill…. Senator Graham we do not need a “climate change bill” the climate is “changed” by the SUN not by “carbon pollution” … again, he has accepted the premise of “man made global warming.”
Paragraph #6:
- …and establishing incentives for low carbon power usage. We all agree, (any sane person would) that nuclear power is the way to go … but there’s the “low carbon” statement again … again he has accepted a false premise. Why not spend time on the “Lindsey Graham Safe Nuclear Power Now” bill? Maybe he could get John Kerry to co-sponsor it with him? [sarc]
Paragraph #7:
- Agree, the EPA is a problem and not only “can” but “is” causing a problem for the economy in many ways. How about legislation that takes this power away from them and puts it back into the hands of congress where the people will will have a say in the process. Signing a Cap and Trade legislation bill to get rid of the EPA rulings is simply acceding to a Democrat threat. Signing Cap and Trade to rein in the EPA is a poor trade off and only adds to the problem.
Paragraph #8:
- We have a struggling economy because the government has interfered with the free market. From the manipulation of the housing market to the takeover of GM. MORE government is NOT what we need to bring jobs to South Carolina. We need less taxes for business and private taxpayers … this will cause the economy to grow just as it did under Reagan. The “how” to fix a struggling economy is firmly fixed in our history, Senator Graham has forgotten those free market principals.
My Summary:
Senator Lindsey Graham believes in the man-made global warming theory and is willing to sign legislation that he believes would stop it. If he doesn’t believe in man made global warming, then he is willing to give in to the global warmists to sign Cap and Trade for the promise of “jobs” for South Carolina. (That sounds a little like a Ben Nelson position to me!). And there are better ways to stimulate jobs … we’ve proven “government stimulus dollars” are about as valuable as Confederate currency here in South Carlina. We’ve received 1 billion dollars in stimulus and 480 million of it went to “social services” … only $73 million went for highways … and that will probably include the cost of the “shovel ready” signs that show up across the country. No jobs have been “stimulated” … and if it didn’t work THIS time, why should we expect it to work in the future?
"Stimulus Signs" = $600,000!
That he has fallen for the global warming hoax causes me personally to doubt his overall intelligence. Has he noticed that it gets cooler when the sun goes down and warms up when the sun comes up? Perhaps he has missed this rather disturbing phenomenon.
He is using is “believe” in man made global warming to drive his solution. He believes that by signing on with the likes of John Kerry to a Cap and Trade piece of legislation will get us nuclear energy, will get us drilling and will get us more jobs in South Carolina. So …
- Start legislation for having nuclear energy the “Lindsey Graham Safe Nuclear Power Now” bill … and he should see if John Kerry would be a co-signer of it with him.
- Start legislation that would allow for “drill now-drill here” … I’m sure John Kerry would also agree to be a co-sponsor on this bill.
- Reduce taxes for corporations, small businesses and private taxpayers. Stimulate the economy with the American spirit for entrepreneurialism and a free market economy. (History has PROVED this works).
- Sponsor legislation to curb the EPA … if you know they are dangerous then go after them!
Relevant Posts after this Post
- Independent Mail: Graham backs off Cap and Trade, Wants weatherproofing of houses for “energy conservation” and thinks we should bomb Iran. 01/13/10
This was a response on the Free Republic to my post:
The problem with making your own legislation is that it will have no chance of passing given the current composition of the house. The left instinctively shys away from drilling for oil because they associate oil production with big multinational business and pollution, and they automatically shy from nuclear plants because nuclear power is “bad” (of course, there is no logic in this thinking, because its all done on emotion rather than reason, but that is how left-wingers work). BUT, if you append these proposals onto whatever bullcrap type climate change bill they are pushing, they are in a quandary. Nuclear power is indisputably “carbon-neutral”, and increasing oil production is indisputably good for the economy (as well as improving security). So how can they oppose such measures in a bill that is supposed to improve quality of life and reduce the amount of CO2 being produced? I can put up with them reducing industrial pollution, not because of the miniscule effect (if any) its going to have on climate but because reducing pollution is a darn good thing to do anyway. The easiest way for most businesses to reduce pollution is just simply to become more efficient.
This was ThePatriotsFlag Response:
Now YOU are doing it … WHAT POLLUTION????? You sound just like Graham … so you propose to give in and give the libs the “ace” that there is carbon (man made) pollution so we can slip “carbon neutral” nuclear into the package? And if you would be naive enough to give them that ace, you’ve also lost the ability to take control of the EPA, you actually strengthen the EPA’s position for the faux “CO2 reduction folly”.
MAKE YOUR OWN LEGISLATION, make “THEM” come to “YOU”. Right now we don’t have the votes … so vote “KNOW” (no) to any legislation even having a hint of leaning left. Draw a line in the sand and say, “That’s it, here’s our ideas, we reject yours and are not going any further [LEFT!].” The Dems will say, “hey, just one more 3 inch step and …” NO!!! We have already appeased them and taken too many baby steps toward toward the left trying to appease them. The result is pure Socialism right here in our own precious USA! Look at the facts, when has giving in to the left resulted in anything for the right?
Giving in to Democrats and “moderates” is like appeasing Iran. You give in, they make promises, nothing happens and you have to give in more and make more promises. Soon there is NOTHING LEFT of your original position. Its time for some backbone, some lines in the sand, and maybe a little courage. There IS NO man-made pollution. CO2 is NOT causing a problem it is only .03% of the atmosphere and it is needed by the ecological flora for survival. Why don’t you suggest the Democrats go after bubble gum … the bubbles have CO2 in them! Now there’s a real change you can believe in! Start laughing at these people instead of taking them seriously and “working with” them … they are a JOKE and what they are doing to this country is a CRIME!
The Patriot’s Flag