Kerry-Graham Op-Ed Gives Climate Bill Bipartisan Backing

Posted by Jared Killeen on October 14, 2009 at 10:37 am

Kerry and Graham worked side by side on the op-ed; will they do the same to pass the climate bill? (image: dsi.go.com)

Readers following the troubled trek of the Senate climate bill through Congress likely noticed a lengthy op-ed in this Sunday’s New York Times penned by Senators John Kerry (D-Mass) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Brightly titled “Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation),” the piece announced Kerry and Graham’s bipartisan union in support of the bill—which has so far failed to garner many Republican votes, and which detractors claim has little chance of being passed this year.

Eager to harness President Obama’s campaign-spun slogan for a seemingly sinking cause, the odd-couple senators make due note of their ability to put political differences aside for the sake of major climate legislation: “It’s true that we come from different parts of the country and represent different constituencies and that we supported different presidential candidates on 2008. We even have different accents. But we speak with one voice in saying that the best way to make America stronger is to work together to address an urgent crisis facing the world.”

Kerry and Graham begin the piece by admitting that “Conventional wisdom suggests that the prospect of Congress passing a comprehensive climate change bill soon is rapidly approaching zero.” Then, with rhetorical acumen, they submit that the opposite is in fact true: “However, we refuse to accept the argument that the United States cannot lead the world in addressing global climate change.”

The rest of the op-ed is spent enumerating the sorts of policy changes that the senators believe can be made through “honest give-and-take and genuine bipartisanship.” Briefly, these changes include instituting a market-based cap and trade system to reduce carbon emissions; investing in emissions-free power, most notably nuclear power; reducing dependence on foreign oil by seeking compromises on additional onshore and offshore drilling; introducing a border tax on goods produced in countries unwilling to submit to more stringent emissions standards; and developing a mechanism to protect businesses and consumers from increases in energy prices brought about by new legislation.

That Graham has stepped forward to support the bill is a sign that at least a few Republicans are willing to talk; and as several commentators have noted, many of the policies outlined in the Kerry–Graham article are surely meant to appeal to broader Republican interests. As Bradford Plumer wrote Monday on The New Republic website, “While Graham isn’t exactly co-sponsoring the Kerry-Boxer proposal just yet, he’s at least naming his price (namely: more support for nukes, offshore drilling, carbon tariffs).” Indeed, according to David Roberts of Grist, the fact that Kerry is willing to make such concessions is a reason to be optimistic that the bill will eventually pass; as Roberts puts it, supporting nuclear power and offshore drilling is “an affordable price relative to the benefits of passing a bill.”

In his article, Roberts posits that certain Republican senators, like Johnny Isakson (R-GA), might be tempted across the aisle by promises of increased nuclear-power funding, while others, like John McCain (R-AZ), might feel pressured by shifting tides to keep up the appearance of maverick bipartisanship. Beyond the politics of Capitol Hill, Roberts points to a few more reasons why we might expect the timely passage of a Senate climate bill. For one thing, polls suggest that the public is largely behind such a bill, and that efforts to frame it as an “energy tax” aren’t working. For another, it’s more difficult to argue that the US is being forced to take undue responsibility for a global problem now that China and other developing nations have made their commitment to emissions reduction clear.

Still, commentators remain cautious; as Roberts says, the chances of Democrats bringing enough Republicans to their side is still “fairly low.” Just because Senator Graham put his name on a Times op-ed doesn’t mean the deal has been sealed. And as The New Republic reminds us, the Republicans made similar overtures early on in the health-care debate, only to band together in stalwart opposition to Obama’s proposed health-care reform.

For most conservatives, cap-and-trade policy still presents a cherished opportunity to cudgel Democrats and win back seats in Congress; and there’s no telling what sort of pressure will be put on Graham and other Republicans to abandon a bipartisan effort and return to the safety of their party. Despite recent polls showing that more Americans support progressive climate-change policy than Republicans and conservative Democrats may think, it is still—to borrow Kerry and Graham’s phrase—“conventional wisdom” that the Senate bill will not pass.