Why Republican Lindsey Graham wants global warming legislation
November 11, 2009 by Tom GuayPosted in: Special Report
Woah, what is Senator Lindsey Graham up to? And why has this Southern conservative joined hands with Northern liberals to get global warming legislation through the Senate?
That’s a question that has most of the GOP and all of the global warming denier crowd scratching their heads and feeling betrayed on a hot emotional issue. Graham supports the Obama administration’s plan to create a cap-and-trade program to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Recently, Graham joined with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) in a New York Times op-ed article to propose a radical compromise that would merge environmental and energy policies under the cap-and-trade banner.
The deal: Graham says the GOP will sign off on a climate change bill that would give environmentalists their holy grail, a GHG cap-and-trade program. In exchange, Kerry says the Democrats will accept expanding nuclear power, increasing oil and gas exploration offshore, and investing in clean coal technologies to capture carbon dioxide releases.
Kerry and Graham also support imposing a border tax on products from developing nations — India and China — if they refuse to match the U.S. effort to reduce GHG emissions.
Graham’s not ignoring business interests. The Kerry/Graham plan would also set maximum and minimum emission credit prices to ease the pain of the transition to low-carbon and clean energy sources like wind, solar and geothermal power.
Graham sees using the cap-and-trade bill as a vehicle to finally formulate a national energy policy that’s primarily designed to reduce American reliance on imported oil.
This story of strange bedfellows is more complicated that simple horse-trading.
It turns out that Graham thinks the planet is in peril due to global warming. As a Washington Post feature points out, Graham thinks it’s high time for the Republicans to stop pretending global warming is a hoax and admit that climate change is a real problem.
There’s a maverick streak in Graham as well. He has worked with Democrats in the past to find compromises on other hot button issues, including immigration reform, judicial nominations, terror trials and health care.
So far, Graham has been all alone in the GOP supporting a compromise on climate change legislation. But he says there are other conservative GOP senators who agree with him. He says they’re just not ready to openly talk about it right now.
Meanwhile, Graham has been rebuked back home. The Charleston County Republican Party voted to censure the Senator “for many of the positions he has taken that do not represent the wishes of the people of South Carolina.” First on the list: passing a cap-and-trade energy bill.
What do you think about the Kerry/Graham deal? Is it time for Congress to work on a policy that solves an environmental and energy problem? Please share your thoughts in the comments section.
Tags: border tax, cap-and-trade, nuclear power, Sen. Graham, Sen. Kerry
GreenandMore.com
Loading ...
November 12th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
It is certainly time to work on a policy that solves environmental and energy problems. Unfortunately, cap and trade is not the answer. Any answer that forces American businesses to be unable to compete globally, thereby costing Americans their jobs and America its might, should ba a nonstarter. Any answer that does not include emission reductions by our global competitors should be a nonstarter – after all, global warming is a global issue. Reducing emissions here and not abroad literally does nothing to help the situation. Literally nothing. We need a worldwide reduction well in excess of 50% of current levels or we make no impact at all. We cannot do that alone. Doing absolutely nothing would be no less productive than trying to do it alone. Finally, any answer that encourages the production of energy anywhere but here at home should be a nonstarter. No one in the world can produce energy cleaner than the US, but the environmentalists have essentially taken a NIMBY approach to the problem. So rather than produce energy here under strict environmental controls, it gets produced abroad with a much lesser regard for how its production affects the WORLD’s environment.
People will argue we must take the lead, but if we give away our strength in an effort to lead by example, no one will follow. If we lead in a way that cannot actually make an impact, no one will follow. Cap and Trade is feel good folly. Nothing more. We can do better if we are honest with ourselves and don’t fall for the rhetoric of the fringe.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Lindsey Grahn is an idiot! Way too many idots runnig around. Is there any sanity left?
November 12th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
While I think I understand Graham’s logic, I have two basic problems: (1) as more and more credible evidence emerges, the whole “man is the cause of global warming” argument becomes less and less believable. So to accept that “the planet is in peril” is making many assumptions, most of which can be disproven. To compromise this issue to the Dems will allow the nose of the proverbial camel under the tent and eventually (liberals are as patient as the Muslim terrorista) open the door for tightening controls, levying more taxes on the businesses that actually CREATE jobs. This amounts to shooting myself in the foot so I can better outrun the bear that is chasing me.
(2) a national energy policy should be articulated based on facts and not politics (wow is that a fantasy). We have enough fossil fuel within our own borders to reduce dependence on oil from our enemies by 92%. We have nuclear power opportunities that has already proven to be a viable contributor to supplying the demand. The return on investment (even with onerous and stifling government regulatory oversight is considerably greater than a windmill that costs a gazillion dollars. The petroleum that is within our borders WILL be harvested. China has perfected horizontal drilling and are poised to tap into our oil from offshore while we act like children instead of looking at the business model. Lindsey is way off base on this–he leans too far left!
November 12th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
I agree with Ed Wixted in his comments adding that we’ve been unable to reach a workable energy policy for so many years that to attempt to fix all of the problems in one step seems foolish. There are so many small related issues that should be somehow aligned before attempting to pass a monstrously large government package just seems totally illogical. But when did that ever stop those with special interest in Washington from doing just that.
A simple 1. 2. 3. approach would be much more effective. It could easily happen in a milestone stepwise approach. It would be softer to touch for businesses such as the energy industry. If there is no technology currently available to allow coal to burn clean then simply passing a law to say, burn clean or pay up, is not the answer. Put money into a clean coal initiative and set some realistic marks over a 5, 10, 15 year period. The initiative should be focused on research not rhetoric. There are companies out there that will rise to the technical challenge to produce this technology but where is their incentive to do this in advance. There is so much red tape into getting any help or support from government that smaller companies stay away from innovation. It shouldn’t take a punitive law to hold the proverbial environmental gun to the head of the energy producer to make them move in a cleaner direction.
The US should lead in innovation. The new tech should be US born and made. The answer to clean coal, clean anything should not be an import, which under our present situation will be.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
treason or tactical trick? It well could be that the concessions regarding home-bound energy expansion will ‘kill’ liberal support and derail the bill. The die-hard liberals are anti-oil, gas, coal, etc., and will likely respond similarly to this as they did to the anti-federal funding components passed in House version of health care reform. Perhaps, we should let this run its course a little bit further. An ‘unhinged’ liberal Congress is far better than an liberal pushed-thru bill unsupported by any Republicans (conservatives) We desperately need to expand US energy resources at home, but as we have seen for quite sometime, liberals hate that notion.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Since when has Lindsey Graham been a Southern Conservative? Spin.Spin.Spin.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Guess who will be running the cap and trade market. The same people who brought us the current economic mess. Bankers & Traders will make millions, with a “tax” placed on the average american.
Business will relocate to areas that qualify for a credit. Or, if force to pay, will cut costs in other areas such as labor.
Better to mandate cleaner tech such as raising MPG on vehilces, etc.
Of course, if cap & trade passes, just follow the money. That will explain everything.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
It’s high time the United States show some leadership on poilicies that will mitigate global climate change. Our refusal to help stop this runaway freight train is a national shame, and I am relieved and heartened to FINALLY see some bi-partisan problem solving.
Sen. Graham is to be commended for pulling his head out of the sand and looking for win-win solutions. If the rest of his party would stop singing the tired old song that environmental stewardship and economic progress are mutually exclusive, we could bring more American ingenuity to bear even faster. Similarly, expecting our industrial pollutors to volunteer to clean up their acts is a fantasy we cannot affort to indulge any longer.
Cap-and-trade is not a perfect strategy, and it will not solve everything, but it is an important piece of the puzzle. As a nation we need to grow up and stop thinking either/or, and accept that this complex situation requires a multi-faceted response.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Subtitle D – Exporting Clean Technology
Sections 441-443, Findings and Purposes, Definitions, Governance:
States that the purpose of this subtitle is to provide U.S. resources to encourage widespread deployment of clean technologies to developing countries. Establishes a Clean Technology Account administered by the State Department in consultation with an interagency group. The Account will supplement and not supplant other federal funding.
What is the Copenhagen Climate Treaty?
The Copenhagen Treaty has two stated goals:
* Transfer wealth from Industrial Nations (The United States) to Developing Countries.
* Dictate energy use and consumption to Industrial Nations (The United States)
Now, just so we are clear…
* Goal Number One is Global Socialism
* Goal Number Two is a Global Dictatorship
If you read any of the Cap & Trade bill, it frequently mentions the creation of a world account which we all know will be funded primarily by the United States.
Every warm blooded American needs to not re-elect any current Senator or Congressman. Throw the whole bunch out and lets take our country back.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
As a Republican, I, too, am a strong advocate of renewable energy, not because of global warming, but because we must do something to stop a whole host of pollutants – probably the worst of which is mercury which comes from burning coal, that the so called “clean” coal technology does nothing to stop. Some states now have mercury warnings on fish from more than 50% of their lakes. For example, there is scientific evidence that suggests a link between childhood autism and mercury. The dangerous levels of mercury that we are beginning to see in our lakes and waterways, and the recent significant increases in child autism may not be coincident.
The other strong reason for renewable energy is the huge drain on U.S. financial resources, purchasing energy from foreign sources. However, recently a Chinese company announced the construction of a large wind energy generation facility, to be built with Chinese Turbines, Chinese Towers, and financed by a Chinese Bank. This type of investment, we do not need — where for the next 40 years all of the money we pay for that energy goes directly to China! We will just be trading the Middle East, for China, where all of our money will flow.
In general, Cap and Trade has some good points. However, carbon is not the only pollutant that should be included in it. Also, the legislation should do something to discourage widespread ownership of U.S. renewable energy resources by non-U.S. organizations.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
First, I am a Libertarian that believes global warming is a farse and have reams of data (including the current climate cooling cycle we are presently in) to support this belief. Do I believe man polutes and introduces toxins and other gasses into the atmosphere that harms flora and fauna alike? Of course I do. Do I think we need to cut our dependence on foreign energy? Of course I do.
A rational view is the view Lindsey Graham is supporting. It pacificies the rebid nitwits on the left and gives us growth plan instead of a plan that will have catestrophic consequences, especially to any manufacturing base that is left in this country. Cap and Trade is a sham. All you have to do is follow the money and you can see why and whom supports this economic death tax.
We have no leadership in Washington, it is time that someone like Graham steps forward (although I do not believe he is the person for the job) and leads this country out of it’s current command and control environment, back to a free market that has always produced the most amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Retreating to a socialist dogma is wreckless and a certain destiny to third world status.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Graham is on the take the same as the rest of the climate hoaxer-one world gov’t types. The truly sad part is that they will get away with their ridiculous scheme because the majority of Americans are no longer capable of rational thought due to their “publik skool” brainwashing.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Follow the money!!! The citizens and taxpayers of the United States will not benefit in any way under Cap-And-Trade legislation. The only ones who will benefit are traders who will make money on every Carbon Credit transfer. This whole scheme is a SCAM designed to take more money out of our pockets and give it to investors and people outside the United States.
When Obama was on the campaign trail he clearly stated that nuclear power, solar energy, wind energy, and domestic oil would be the major components of a new energy policy. HE LIED. I don’t believe any new nuclear power plants have been approved because the liberals and environmentalists don’t want them. Our Congress has closed off over 200,000 acres of Alaska to oil exploration at a time when we need it most! Beware the lies coming from Washington. Don’t believe them!!!
November 12th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
I call bupkus on this.
Even if Graham gets concession on Nuclear – their being built will be stopped by the Environmentalists in courts – and Democrats still have to hold their end of the bargain to get the license passed. Once they have Cap & Trade signed into law – what makes Graham think Obama and the Dems will follow through on licenses and getting the things built.
MY best guess is Graham is caving to heavy handed threats from Obama admin to use the EPA to tax the hell out of his coal industry – and Graham is buying them 10 years of free carbon credits.
It’s very short sighted – and will be kicking the can – while giving the Liberals carte blanche to regulate and tax everything in sight into the ground – not by EPA mandates that can be changed with a new administration – but by law that the Sierra Club will continue to impose on us – regardless of who holds the powers in Washington.
No thanks Lindsay – you need to be defeated on this issue
November 12th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
I agree totally with Kat – it is high time that a Republican took action. Hats off to Lindsey Graham!
November 12th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
I don’t agree with what you are planning to do with your global warming intitive. If President Obama signs this, it will over turn the Constitution of the United States of America and basically throw it out. I wonder if any of you are aware of this out there. President Obama wants the United States to become a world country. And basically we would be a Socialist country. Our little carbon foot print isn’t going to make a difference, so you might as well just give it up, if it wasn’t for you wackos we might have oil in our country, and we would not be held hostage by the Arabic countries for the oil.
Why don’t you just go to some island somewhere and leave us all alone and stop distroying our jobs our economy and now our country. I hate global warming now more than ever, you people need to just shut the hell up.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Highlights of the Updated 2008 Senate Minority Report featuring over 650
international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can
speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that
man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely
upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface
system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to
receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190
studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC
4
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t
have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on
scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist
Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported
International Year of the Planet.
“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future
warming.” – Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi
University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace
member.
“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a
fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.”
- Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo.
Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar
interaction with the Earth.
The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN
scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymaker
Read this report and ask yourself if these scientists are maybe slightly more educated than Al Gore before you jump on the global warming bandwagon.
Throw the bums out!!!!! Support our Constitution.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
I have to agree with J. Jones.
We need to do something to stop pollution, and get renewable energy. But stop this “global warming” farce. It just distracts from what needs to be done.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
It’s amazing how many people use skewed, outdated or obviously foolish information. Cap and trade is already being used in Europe, even GM has bought several thousand acres of Brazilian rain forest as part of a cap and trade program. It already exists elsewhere, an elsewhere that is part of the industrial west. We have been poor stewards of our planet, and once it is gone so are we. Whether global warming exists or not, we in the US tend to ignore our impact on the planet. Sunlight is free, converting it to electricity is not, but could be a major industry in this century. Why is the US so far behind in developing this technology, so that we might become the provider to the world? Mature markets, with mature goods, is not where growth for jobs or income will come from. The US has always promoted new technologies and industries, why are we so reticent to maintain that leadership position? Conventional internal-combustion engines are an old technology, relying on them in the future will seem as anachronistic as using a mule to plow a field today. Stop looking at old worn-out technologies to save us, and look for the technologies that will lead us into the future. The problem with most social conservatives is that they are afraid of change, even if that change would provide better jobs and incomes for the country in which they live. Whether it is the conservatism of Iranian clerics or that of willfully ignorant American conservatives.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Joel Brown is correct. Cap and Trade is about a) money and the few traders who will benefit, chief among them is Al Gore, whose new company will be a key seller; b) paving a way for American wealth to be paid to non-developed nations for our success in industry and manufacturing. Note: The primary reason for the failures of these non-developed status in these nations is not the populace, its their governments, and the corruption therein; c) a platform whereby a single global government is established under the auspices that the carbon polluters are indebted to those nations that are less so.
Global warming is the ultimate communist hoax, and like the deception goat that walks up the slaughter house chute ramp and bleats for the sheep below to follow, we are marching to our nation’s death by giving any credence at all to this pseudo-science. Folks, the warming trend we saw over a ten year period is directly attributable to the sun’s activity level, nothing more. And, now it’s diminishing, which is directly related to lower sunspot activity.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
First of all global warming is not caused by anything that civilization has done. The science just doesn’t support the claims coming from the environmentalists that say “the debate is over”. Somehow a powerpoint presentation from a washed up politician with a degree in journalism ended the debate.
Giving in to the global warmimg fanatics will be the first step down the road to higher utility bills, higher gasoline prices, an end to manufacturing in this country, and destruction of the most reliable electrical grid in the world.
Any of our Representatives that has examined the evidence for and against manmade global warming and still believes global warming is manmade is too stupid to be in any position of authority.
Any Representative that is too lazy to bother researching this issue is too lazy to be in a position of authority.
VOTE
November 12th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
I disagree with DDC. Why is the responsibilty of the United States to provide for the World? This Country is falling apart right now, people are loosing their jobs, and we’re suppose to help other countries climate change, that is ludicrus. No one can fix the climate. Lets face it, it has been changing for millions of years. Nothing we do is going to change that. A Volcano exploding tomorrow will have more effect on the planet, then me driving my car to work.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Heaven forbid we have two Senators from opposite sides of the aisle trying to work together for a common cause (us). What’s a 24 hour news cycle to do?
November 12th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
WOW the ice is starting to melt, finally a Republican who is breaking party lines and beginning to think about people of today and tomorrow. America needs to realize there are issues that go far above “Political Party” lines. I am a local government official where Partisan Politics do enter into solving issues facing our level of government. We investigate the issue, ask for opinions and vote to come up with a solution. All part of the process needed to move on in a responsible manner.
As an American I can not believe how stubbornly we have buried our heads in the sand on Global Warming. Are we all afraid of losing our fossil fuel financial structure? Here is the irony, even if there wasn’t Global Warming, clean energy would still be the best thing we could do for ourselves now and our children tomorrow. God Bless America and the rest of the world too!
November 12th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
“There’s a maverick streak in Graham as well”.
Now besides John McCain, Lindsey Graham is considered a” maverick”. It would seem to me if these people were truly “mavericks” in a positive way, Graham and McCain could get the Democrats to cross over and support Conservative programs occasionally. I don’t think that ever happens. They are both “useful idiots”.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
With regard to nuclear power and Cap and Trade legislation, we should all remember that the primary problem with licensing any new nuclear plants in the U.S. is storage of waste. Yucca Mountain, Nevada, currently our only facility is not accepting any waste, so there will be no nuclear plants licensed until this issue is settled. Before you blame President Obama, remember that it is a Republican Governor Jim Gibbons of Nevada who stood on the rail road track and refused to allow a train with waste into his state of Nevada. It is a Republican Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects Director Bruce Breslow who said in June 2009 that storage of nuclear waste will make nuclear power too expensive unless the government pays for the waste disposal “It doesn’t appear the private sector can afford it.” Although President Bush gave “lip service” to nuclear power, during the first six years of his administration, when the Republicans controlled both houses of congress, no nuclear plants were licensed, nor did he call out the army and force Nevada to accept nuclear waste — which he could have done if he really intended to do something about the storage problem.
So, when arguing about the cost of Cap and Trade policies for promoting renewable energy, don’t forget that it will cost over $100 Trillion for the U.S. government to subsidize nuclear power because of the 25,000 year commitment to operate and protect Yucca Mountain, or any other site that we will choose for disposal. Cap and Trade will cost only a very small amount in comparison to what it will cost to operate a few nuclear plants for their planned 40 year life time.
Remember that solar, hydro, and wind have no significant disposal cost or decommisioning cost, have no fuel cost (uranium is not cheap), and have no significant large scale catastrophic “accidents” or terrorist actions that could cost billions to clean up.
If we, as some people have stated, want the free market to pay for energy and not have Cap and Trade, then the cost of decommissioning and disposal for nuclear plants needs to be included in the rate users pay for electricity generated by nuclear plants — which, of course, makes nuclear energy completely infeasible economically.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Those of you commenting on Cap and Trade and Oil, ought to take a much longer and deeper look at the Oil Industry before writing comments. The oil market is a reasonably free market in which the price of oil is set by the forces of supply and demand. There are several tens of thousands of acres of land already leased to oil companies in the U.S. which they are not developing. The reason has nothing to do with politics — it is purely economic. All of the near surface, developable oil reserves in the U.S. are long gone. It is far cheaper to drill and develop oil in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait than anywhere in the U.S. Even if we opened up large areas of land for oil leases, it would simply not help. The cost is too high to do the exploration and development here. If you want to have a socialist form of government that owns an oil company and forces it to drill at a loss, OK. But, if you want a free market, then few oil resources in the U.S. will ever be developed in the near term.
The President of Exxon-Mobile, in a televized interview last year said, even if we did start exploration now (which they won’t because it is too expensive), the “first drop of product goes to market 10 years or more after we start exploration”.
For those of you lobbying for Alaska and the ANWR reserves, there has been seismic work done, although only one exploration well has been drilled. The fact is that the reserves there are significantly smaller than the Prudoe Bay field, and are scattered into smaller reservoirs and will be much more expensive to produce. Not a single oil company has any interest in developing those fields so long as the price of Saudi oil stays below $200 or so a barrel. Remember that gas cost $4 when oil prices hit $167 — so, ten years after the price of gas is around $5 a gallon, we might see oil companies shipping oil to refineries from ANWR.
Also, remember that the Prudoe Bay field has run it’s course. The field is significantly in the decline, only about 30 years after we drilled it and built the pipeline. At today’s consumption rate, ANWR will only last 10-15 years.
We’ve recently found a reservoir in the Gulf of Mexico. It is at around 20,000 feet — the one and only well cost upwards of $100 million to drill. That oil is going to stay put for a long time — it is just too expensive to extract.
The bottom line is that if we are going to have any significant impact on the massive drain on our economy caused by the purchase of foreign oil, we have to stop buying it. Cars and trains have to run on electricity produced here via Wind Energy sources. Fleets of buses and trucks need to switch to natural gas which is fairly expensive to produce in the U.S. but available at a reasonable cost and plentiful in Mexico.
I believe that the “jury is still out” on man caused global warming. But recent archeological finds, about 300 feet deep off the coast of the U.S. and South America, have found evidence of the ancestors of Native Americans who migrated across the Bering Strait about 21,000 years ago. At that rate (300 feet in 21,000 years), sea level has been rising, on average, about 38 cm per century. Most of the climate change models agree that sea level will rise about 36 cm by 2100, some predict more. If it is more then the human carbon load may be to blame. But, most likely global warming, which is real and has been for the last 21,000 years (since the last ice age) is mostly caused by the natural cycle of warming and cooling that the earth has seen for at least the last 1/4 million years.
November 13th, 2009 at 8:23 am
j. jones says “Remember that solar, hydro, and wind have no significant disposal cost or decommisioning cost, have no fuel cost (uranium is not cheap), and have no significant large scale catastrophic “accidents” or terrorist actions that could cost billions to clean up.” This statement leaves out one very important point, no solar and wind generation would exist in this country if it were not subsidised by the government. Cap and Trade will end the government subsidies by mandating that utilities purchase renewable energy regardless of cost. Of course we’ll go on footing the bill to subsidise this inefficient form of producing energy through higher utility rates. Under this scenario there is no incentive for the wind and solar industry to ever become more efficient and therefore economically viable. They are guaranteed a market and a profit for their product through government regulations.
There are a limited number of locations in the US that have a constant source of wind that makes generation economically feasible. The Atlantic and Pacific coast happen to be the top two loocations for wind generation in the US. Factor in that over 40% of the US population lives near the coastal areas resulting in the distribution infrastructure being already in place and one has to wonder why we see no wind mills in these areas. Bottom line is you need wind to rotate the blades that turn the turbine to produce electricity unless of course you are guaranteed a market and a profit then it doesn’t matter.
Oh and one other point here J. Jones, if you truly want to have an open informed discussion leave the politics out of it. Seems some of you can’t resist bashing the prior administration. I believe that the decsions that have been made and that are presently being made based solely on politics and not science and economics simply serve as an injustice against all Americans.
November 13th, 2009 at 8:27 am
I definitely think it is time to look at nuclear as the future of energy production here in the US. Drilling for more oil will work for the short term, but I am getting disgusted of we Americans continually looking only to the short term. We see a great example with the economic meltdown we are in right now and it is all caused by short term thinking by all. As for global warming, I do not believe that it caused solely by humans. Instead, it is a natural phenomena but is getting accelerated by things that we are doing.
November 13th, 2009 at 8:32 am
In response to J Jones comments regarding oil exploration in ANWR, if the cost to extract the oil in ANWR is just too high for the oil companies to even be interested, why block the sale of oil leases ? Seems to me if the oil companies are willing to pay us for the rights to drill for oil that can’t be extracted economically we should take the money and run. Am I missing something ?
November 13th, 2009 at 8:53 am
DC: It’s amazing how many people use skewed, outdated or obviously foolish information?
Are you saying that we should trust Al Gore over the worlds leading climatologists? The Al Gore who profited to the tune of ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS last year off this global warming scam? The Al Gore who achieved a whopping D in science class? And did you actually use GM as an example? hehe
“Weather” is what you experience when you go outside. “Climate” consists of worldwide averages and is a statistic. The two should not be confused.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a benign, odorless, colorless gas caused by burning carbon and organic compounds and by respiration. It is not a pollutant.
Carbon is the chemical element of atomic number 6, a nonmetal that has two main forms (diamonds and graphite) and that also occurs in impure form in charcoal, soot and coal. Carbon is a solid. Carbon Dioxide is a gas.
The objective is to link CO2 with coal, for coal is seen as truly evil. It is mined, disturbing mother earth. Mining is evil. Coal is loaded on long trains, called “death trains” by uber greenie NASA scientist and activist James Hansen. Burning coal to create electricity is evil because it creates the “pollutant” CO2. But if CO2 is NOT a pollutant — which it isn’t— then the whole thing falls apart.
More foolish information?
November 13th, 2009 at 8:59 am
A 2008 study by Management Information Services Inc looked at US energy more widely than just electricity, and took in all federal incentives, not simply R&D, from 1950 to 2006. Some $726 billion was identified (2006 dollars). Its conclusions included:
o The largest incentive category was tax concessions, especially for oil but also wind. No tax concession was for nuclear in this period.
o Total support for nuclear power over the 56 years was $65 billion, 9% of the total incentives. This compared with $50 billion (7%) for non-hydro renewables (wind and solar) plus geothermal.
o The main support was for oil and gas – $436 billion, 60% of total, with coal at $93 billion (13%).
o Most of the support for nuclear power was in R&D.
o Today nuclear power in the USA pays more than it receives due to contributions to the federal nuclear waste fund, which so far exceed disbursements from it by $14 billion. (There is no corresponding payment from other energy sources.)
Focusing on R&D:
o R&D comprised 19% of the total incentives, and half of this ($67 billion of $135 billion) was for nuclear, 16.5% for renewables plus geothermal, and 23% for coal. (Nuclear fusion was not included)
o Of the nuclear R&D, about $39 billion was spent before 1975 to explore a range of reactor concepts.
o Nuclear R&D peaked at $2.8 billion in 1978 and declined sharply to about $550 million in 1987, then steadily to a low of $75 million in 2001.
o Research on breeder reactors took 35% ($23.7 billion) of the nuclear R&D, though funding for this ceased in 1988. From 1976 to 1988, the breeder program accounted for a high proportion of expenditure.
o Light water reactor technology accounted for only 8% ($5.3 billion) of the nuclear R&D though it now provides almost 20% of US electricity.
o Other reactor types received $38 billion in R&D.
o Since 1988, spending on nuclear R&D has been less that for coal, and since 1994 it has been less than that for renewables as well.
More foolish information?
November 13th, 2009 at 10:04 am
“I disagree with DDC. Why is the responsibilty of the United States to provide for the World?” I never said it was our “responsibility”, I rather said it is an opportunity to continue being leaders in new technologies. Which in turn will provide jobs that are being lost to mature industries world-wide. As to wind power, at least on the west coast there are several wind farms in California, I pass through a large wind farm traveling between Phoenix and LA. With continueing development of solar power many Americans would be able to generate the electricity they use through panels on their roofs. Of course this would break the current monopoly held by utility companies, so why do we expect these very companies to be leaders in a technology that will contribute to their loss of power, no pun intended. Once again, it doesn’t matter whether man is causing global warming or not, what matters is who is going to be the technological leader in the coming century. Just as many third world countries have by-passed land line telephone systems in favor of cellular coverage, we will be left behind if we don’t lead. Oil is an old technology with no real room for growth, hydrogen (the ultimate solution), solar, and wind are the future of power technology. You either have to lead, follow or get-out-of-the-way. I would prefer we lead, it sounds like many of you would rather follow.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:22 am
“Rick Says:
November 13th, 2009 at 8:53 am
DC: It’s amazing how many people use skewed, outdated or obviously foolish information?
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a benign, odorless, colorless gas caused by burning carbon and organic compounds and by respiration. It is not a pollutant.”
I hope you realize that a high enough concentration of CO2 is toxic to humans. It is a waste product of respiration, and in suffcient quantity will kill you. That is why CO2 scrubbers are so important in space flight. Of course it is also true that CO2 in proper quantities is what triggers autonomic resperation.
It is true that geomorphologists, not climatologist, view the Earth’s climate over tens of thousands of years and cannot determine the cause of our current warming trends. The problem with all climate models is the sample size is to small to make sweeping conclusion, on either side. My main argument is, we as Americans fail to consider our actions, even over the medium term, and that by clinging to old technologies as the basis for our economy we will be passed by those who are looking for new and better ways of doing things.
The Roman and Britsh Empires ulimately failed because they became lazy, considered themselves entitled just because of their nationality, no longer tried to advance themselves but rested on their laurels, tried to police to large an area for their capabilities, saw a decline in public interest in ever more corrupt politics, and only then were overrun by barbarians. It seems like all we are missing is the barbarians.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:39 am
J Jones said “I believe that the “jury is still out” on man caused global warming. But recent archeological finds, about 300 feet deep off the coast of the U.S. and South America, have found evidence of the ancestors of Native Americans who migrated across the Bering Strait about 21,000 years ago. At that rate (300 feet in 21,000 years), sea level has been rising, on average, about 38 cm per century. Most of the climate change models agree that sea level will rise about 36 cm by 2100, some predict more. If it is more then the human carbon load may be to blame. But, most likely global warming, which is real and has been for the last 21,000 years (since the last ice age) is mostly caused by the natural cycle of warming and cooling that the earth has seen for at least the last 1/4 million years.”
I say J Jones has made up his mind a long time ago about manmade global warmimg and has bought into it hook line and sinker. By pretending to be undecided he is trying to further hie erroneous beliefs through what he believes we will buy his illogical conclusions and erroneous facts as rational thinking.
How do you take an average of 38cm sea level rise from 210 centuries and state that if the sea level rise is more then 36 cm this century human carbon load may be to blame. An average is just that, one of 210 numbers that when totaled and divided by 210 result in 38 cm.
For human carbon load to be the blame for sea level rise you must first prove that manmade CO2 is a direct cause for global warming not use the sea level rise as proof of the fact. This isn’t logical.
However, the following are facts -
Based on 500,000 years worth of ice samples CO2 has gone up AFTER warming periods not prior to warming periods. Sometimes the lag has been as great as 800 years.
CO2 works by absorbing a certain wavelength of light generated by the sun this is the natural greenhouse effect. As more CO2 is added the available wavelength of light for CO2 to absorb is diminished because the sun produces a more or less fixed amount of energy. ThIt doesn’t increase it’s output because there is more CO2 in the atmosphere.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:46 am
As for the “Cap and Trade”, as Steve said, “follow the money”. I think that’s about time our useless, pasty-faced, government officials get off their ever-widening backsides and decided to do something about global warming. However, I must say that I wonder about their reasons. So far as I have seen, my personal opinion, that is, they have discovered a way to make a profit for themselves.
I agree that something must be done, and that America, not only as a nation, but as a people, should be looking for ways to improve and better our world, instead of destroying our planet.
My problem is, our so-called benevolent government officials only look for ways to profit themselves, and more recently, over-tax the citizens of our great nation. What are they gaining this time? And how much more are “We the People” going to have to fork out to them?
Furthermore, we all live on this planet. Why all the arguing about cleaning it up? Lets just get off our collective backsides and do what needs to be done. No one has a problem with doing it to make a buck, why not to make our world a better, CLEANER, place to live?
November 13th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
DDC: Water is toxic in a large enough quantity, but is not a pollutant and neither is CO2.
I will agree that we as a nation have become lazy, but the reason we cannot produce anything cheaper than other countries is due to our government over regulating everything. We have OSHA, EPA, DOT, and how many other agencies that “regulate” what we can and can’t do? I am not saying that those agencies do not serve a purpose, but if you can honestly say that they don’t drive up the cost of producing our goods and ultimately the cost to the end user, then it is you who has his head buried in the sand.
And why have we become as the Romans and the Brits? Because instead of rewarding hard work, we excuse the laziness and irresponsibility of far too many people. (including our elected officials) Under the guise of compassion, we have allowed everyone to become victims and to excuse everything that they do.
When I grew up, those who worked the hardest got the biggest reward. Not anymore, because that’s not fair. The government won’t allow it.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Thank you, Larry, for bringing some actual historical science to the discussion! Global warming…what a scam! If I recall correctly from my science classes somewhere between Junior High and High School (a very long time ago), the earth has had approximately seven ice ages, all of which included drastic warming and cooling periods. Assuming people actually lived that far back, the populations (animal and man) were nothing like they are today. No one owned a car and even though everyone used camp fires for cooking and heat, their “carbon footprint” could not have possibly made enough of a dent in the global climate to generate such climate phenomenon. And yet the ice ages came and went, not once, but a number of times.
Wake up all who believe the current global warming garbage of people like Al Gore and the ultra-environmentalists! God designed this planet and the rest of the universe with natural physical cycles, similar to those that exist in the body of every person ever born. While I totally agree that we need to be good stewards of our environment, it is folly and foolishness to believe that we are the sole cause or solution for all that happens to our planet and environment.
The current environmentalist-mania is out of control. If everything is converted to use electriccity generated by solar panels and windmills, what happens when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine for any length of time? How will you cook and get to your job? Can you imagine electricity demand of 100 million cars plugged in over night all across the nation trying to “charge up” for the next morning’s commute? And what about all those rich environmentalist liberals that live in southern CA, Washington DC, and other parts of the country? Are they willing to give up their mansions, air conditioning, yachts, vacations, and other extreme comforts of extreme financial blessing?
If you want to live in a 3rd world environment, then go find a forest or cave, make yourself at home, and establish yourself as a life-time camper! I bet you will soon miss your hot showers, indoor plumbing, evening lights, cell phone, and the ability to watch a video feed from your favorite liberal socialist pontificate from their private jet as he/she travels to their next “global warming conference” that your sacrifice to live without has somehow made a major impact for the environment and the social good. Realize this…They are making millions off of you! If they truly believed what they preach, they would follow their own mantra by giving up all their niceties and conveniences and prove to us how great that life could be going back to a 3rd world life-style.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:28 am
Larry Friedline said: “CO2 works by absorbing a certain wavelength of light generated by the sun this is the natural greenhouse effect.”
This statement is, of course, completely wrong. Elements absorb “a certain wavelength of light” — molecules always absorb in bands of wavelengths. Actually, in work that I did for the U.S. Army almost two decades ago, I studied the visible and non-visible light absorbtion characteristics of both carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, in arc plasmas.
Larry Friedline also said: “CO2 has gone up AFTER warming periods.” This is also not true. The carbon dioxide levels increased prior to the increase in global temperatures. This does not mean that carbon dioxide is, in fact, a causal agent, the two events could be completely independent. However, for at least three ice age cycles, the carbon dioxide level, and the temperature level curves appear to be similar in their periods, and general functional shape.
The data I cited about sea level rise, actually, in my opinion throws some significant doubt on the “man made” global warming theory. However, the predictive models vary quite widely, some showing a cooling trend (which, of course is false since the sea level has obviously been rising for 210 centuries in a row); and some showing wildly increasing temperatures, which, most likely are not correct either. The average of the moderate models predicting a sea level rise of 36 cm in the next 91 years is in line with the average increase per century of the last 210 centuries — all of which was caused by natural, not man made effects.
If those models prove to be wrong and the temperature increase is significantly larger, then carbon dioxide levels could be the blame. Unfortunately, climate modeling for the entire Earth is just in it’s infancy, and we as scientists should be careful to draw hard conclusions from very soft data. But, man made global warming is certainly one, very viable, potential cause — but only one of many which cannot yet be eliminated with complete certainty.
How does this affect the U.S.? Well, we are the largest generators of carbon dioxide, but China and India are rapidly catching up with us, and Europe produces their fair share too. Should the U.S. pay the bill by itself? Certainly not. But, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are not just up slightly, they are DOUBLE the higest level seen in at least the last 1/2 million years. Carbon dioxide is a pollutant — it does harm to many animals and at high enough levels will kill humans. We as humans naturally give off a lot of things, some of which in high enough concentrations are lethal (e.g., urea, uric acid, etc.). So, given that carbon dioxide can be harmful, and we are seeing unprecedented increases, we should take steps to reduce its emissions.
It is not all that expensive. We need additional energy sources, we will also be retiring old electric generating plants that we must replace. Why not use wind energy. It is actually, now, one of the lowest cost sources. The average generated cost of electricity in the U.S. in 2008 was 6.7 cents per kW-hr. Wind plants, in the right places, with good wind, and properly operated and maintained, can generate electricity for about 4 cents per kW-hr. Hydro is cheaper, fully depreciated coal plants are cheaper. But “clean coal” is very very expensive — it will cost much more than wind when, and if, the research is successful.
The largest manufacturer of wind turbines is a solid U.S. company, GE, and Clipper Windpower has a very cool new design and they are also a good U.S. company. So, why not invest in the U.S. build lots of wind systems, which will lower the cost of our energy, and at the same time reduce the amount that we buy from foreign sources, some of whom will spend the money to attack us. If we do this, Cap and Trade will be good for the U.S., and will provide some of the financing needed to install wind systems as our demand grows and as we retire old coal and natural gas plants. Then, if it does turn out that carbon dioxide is a problem, we will have contributed to the good of the earth as well.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:53 am
Larry Friedline Said: “no solar and wind generation would exist in this country if it were not subsidised by the government.” That’s simply not true. Oil and natural gas pipelines are subsidized, rail transport of coal is subsidized, but these subsidies don’t show up as a line item in the Department of Energy budget like the renewable subsidy, so the press hasn’t been talking about these subsidies. But, we heavily subsidize coal, natural gas, and oil. Solar, of course would not be installed in any significant quantities if it wasn’t for the Production Tax Credit (PTC). But, well run wind plants are producing electricity at 2 cents per kW-hr LESS than the average generated cost, without the PTC. Here in Colorado, the Public Utilities Commission actually denied a rate increase for wind energy, because the general rate increase was justified by fuel cost increases, and wind did not have any such increase. Newly installed and properly run wind plants in the U.S. are now, actually one of the cheapest forms of electricity available to many utilities — much cheaper than new coal fired plants, and much much cheaper than “clean coal” plants which will cost a fortune, and definitely will have to be subsidized in legislation that will, no doubt, be sponsored by law makers in coal producing states.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:12 am
Mike said: “If everything is converted to use electriccity generated by solar panels and windmills, what happens when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine for any length of time? How will you cook and get to your job? Can you imagine electricity demand of 100 million cars plugged in over night all across the nation trying to “charge up” for the next morning’s commute?”
First, the “smart grid” which is being developed because we need a reliable transmission system, not because of wind and solar, will have tons of storage capacity. For example, there are over 90 GW of pumped hydro energy storage alreay installed world wide, and a number of other storage technologies are also in development.
Second, as for plugging all those cars in at night — go to Wikipedia and look up the Low Level Jet (LLJ). It is a meterological phenomenon that occurs a few places on earth. But the U.S. Great Plains is the best and biggest example. The LLJ occurs nocturally and is a flow of warm moist air about 200 km wide that flows from the middle gulf coast up into the central Great Plains. It is very reliable, in fact the only time it has been known to fail resulted in the dust bowl during the Great Depression, when that moist air was not being transported northward. Because of the LLJ, new wind systems, which will be much higher in altitude than the current ones, will generate, very reliably, large quantities of wind energy every night. Some can be used for charging automobiles and some can be stored.
We need oil to produce paint, polymers, jet fuel, drugs and other medical devices like artifical kidnays, etc. Let’s not just burn it all up because it is here. Let’s conserve it. The U.S. Great Plains is unique in the world. At the higher altitudes, where the largest wind turbines will be installed, the U.S. Great Plains actually has at least 3 times the energy generating capacity that we use in the U.S., and that number may be as high as 8 times. The farmers and ranchers who live on the Great Plains struggle many years because of crop failure, weather problems, diseases, etc. By giving up just 3% of their agricultural land to wind systems, many of them can double their income, and have a reliable source of income as well.
All over the world, the U.S. Great Plains is referred to as the “Saudi Arabia of Wind”. We have so much wind power available that we can easily become an energy exporting country, and produce huge amounts of revenue to offset our balance of payments problems with Asia. Now that wind has “crossed the line” and wind is cheaper than the average cost of energy in many parts of the U.S., it is time to take advantage of it — make money from it — and become, once again, a very wealthy nation.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Please, ANY fees will be passed onto the already economically decimated average consumer. Always remember, if there’s no publicity or more oftem MONEY in it for them, a politician won’t touch it with a ten foot pole. They only represent the lobby and special intrests that put money (a lot of money) in their campaigns and pockets.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:49 am
J Jones the fact that “molecules always absorb in bands of wavelengths” and that you studied “visible and non-visible light absorbtion characteristics of both carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide” doesn’t address the point that I was trying to make. Which is CO2 works by absorbing a certain “bandwith” of light generated by the sun this is the natural greenhouse effect. As more CO2 is added the available bandwith” of light for CO2 to absorb is diminished because the sun produces a more or less fixed amount of energy. It doesn’t increase it’s output because there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore as the quantity of photons that fall within the bandwith absorbed by CO2 diminish the warming effect attributed to increased CO2 levels also decreases. So having twice the CO2 levels in the upper atmosphere doesn’t result in twice the warming. After a saturation point of 20 ppm the effects of CO2 are drastically diminished. Since we are presently at 380 ppm CO2 the warming effects are minimal at best.
As far as excess CO2 being a pollutant tell that to the plants that rely on CO2 to grow. As CO2 levels increase so does the level of plant life. Without CO2 mankind would not exist.
I agree that we must reduce our dependance on foreign oil and develop economical sources of renewable energy. But I also believe that we should do so for the right reasons and manmade global warming is not the right reason. The present carbon cap and tax bill that the US Congress and the Senate are developing will only pass higher costs on to the citizens of this country, cripple industry, and result in a much less reliable power grid. No matter how smart it is it doesn’t matter if there is no power.
If it were possible to generate all of our power with wind and solar we would reduce our present oil demand by less than 2%. Very little power is presently generated in the US with oil. India, China and quite a few third world countries use heavy fuel oil to generate electricity. Mike was absolutely correct when he said if the wind stops so does the electricity. J Jones statement that “there are over 90 GW of pumped hydro energy storage alreay installed world wide” may be true WORLDWIDE but unless that smart grid can transmit electricity across the ocean the total usable storage is much lower. The installed capacity in the US is 15,800 GW so even if all 90 GW were here it is not anywhere near enough if wind and solar are to make up 20% of our generating capacity as the carbon cap and tax bill edicts.
Power storage is an issue given little attention by lawmakers but would go a long way to improving generation now. Some utilities are looking at using compressed air as a means of power storage by using large compressors to pump air into underground caverns and when needed releasing the air through a turbine to generate electricity. However, until power storage is developed wind and solar need backed up by spinning reserves powered by hydro, natural gas, or coal. Unless you don’t mind blackouts.
We should reduce our dependance on foreign oil by developing our own oil reserves both in ANWR and offshore while promoting electric vehicles through tax incentives. To supply the increased electrical demand due to electrical vehicles we need to develop our natural gas reserves, the Marcellas Shale area holds a 100 year supply of natural gas, clean coal, wind, and solar. This is common sense but will not appease the environmentalists whose agenda is to make a quick buck off of us. Goldman Sachs and all of the other brokerage firms have invested heavily in schemes that will benefit significantly with any carbon cap and tax bill. Truth be known so have many of our so called servants in Washington.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Very interesting discussion, but hard to take those who know it all.
For my money Kat says it better than I could……so repeating here…..
# Kat Says:
November 12th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
It’s high time the United States show some leadership on poilicies that will mitigate global climate change. Our refusal to help stop this runaway freight train is a national shame, and I am relieved and heartened to FINALLY see some bi-partisan problem solving.
Sen. Graham is to be commended for pulling his head out of the sand and looking for win-win solutions. If the rest of his party would stop singing the tired old song that environmental stewardship and economic progress are mutually exclusive, we could bring more American ingenuity to bear even faster. Similarly, expecting our industrial pollutors to volunteer to clean up their acts is a fantasy we cannot affort to indulge any longer.
Cap-and-trade is not a perfect strategy, and it will not solve everything, but it is an important piece of the puzzle. As a nation we need to grow up and stop thinking either/or, and accept that this complex situation requires a multi-faceted response.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Am I the only sane person in this country who can see how desperately we need a Central party to knock both the extreme, demanding Democrats and the crazy Republicans out of the water so that we can quit fighting and get some REAL work done?
November 16th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
The real question is what is in it for Lindsey Graham. Remember the Pickens Plan to ween America off of foreign oil? Sounded good, until the real details came out. See link.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4275059.html
November 18th, 2009 at 6:08 am
[...] Most Americans say they want action on global warmingWho’ll be the monkey in the climate change trial?Google lights fire under promise of clean energyWhy Republican Lindsey Graham wants global warming legislation [...]
November 24th, 2009 at 10:39 am
[...] Note: The Webb/Alexander push to emphasize a nuclear option is echoed in a Graham/Kerry plan to expand nuclear power in the U.S. in exchange for creating the GHG cap-and-trade…. [...]