Free Markets, Free People

Lindsey Graham And “Climate Change”

Or, what Lindsey Graham may end up costing you.  He was interviewed by the AP concerning his advocacy of AGW (which he says was something he learned about from John McCain and Hillary Clinton).  Here’s his answer to one of the questions:

Q: How did you get involved in this issue?

A: It was a slow evolution. I started traveling with Sen. (John) McCain, who has been a climate change advocate for a long time, and I went to the Arctic region with him and Sen. (Hillary Rodham) Clinton. I came to the conclusion from listening to the scientists … from people who lived in the regions, that the canary in the coal mine is in the Arctic regions, and that the planet is heating up. How much is caused by greenhouse gases, I don’t know. But I believe to some extent it’s a contributing factor. …

Now, why did I choose to do something this time around? … The one thing that I could say without any doubt, that the best chance to create jobs for the future here in this country is energy independence. And you will never become energy independent until you price carbon.

Where are the friction points to getting to 60 votes (to advance a bill)? If the emissions standard is not meaningful, if it’s not economy-wide, I don’t think you get there. This whole issue of China and India and a global regime looms large in getting 60 votes in the Senate. Without some assurances that this is not a unilateral surrendering of market share to China and India — because our companies will have a burden imposed upon them not shared by China and India — is a huge political problem. … Those are some of the trip wires that exist to getting to 60 votes.

First the false premise – you can easily get to “energy independence” without pricing carbon. The whole purpose of pricing carbon is to cut emissions, not create “energy independence”. Fully exploit existing energy resources, build new clean (nuclear) energy production facilities and aggressively pursue clean and renewable energy solutions. That’s how you become “energy” independent. Government’s role, if any? Enabling that process.

Secondly, Graham outright admits that without the participation of India and China, we would be ceding market share to them because they wouldn’t have to face the costs we would face. So there’s no question he understands that any pricing of carbon is going to cost the US economy. He’s not averse to that, he simply wants it to be a shared burden which puts them at the same disadvantage as us. That’s nuts. We’re in a deep recession and he’s talking about steps to deepen it. And even if we weren’t in a recession, he has to be aware the science is dubious and the effect most likely marginal at best if they imposed the most stringent controls possible.

Graham isn’t up for election this cycle or the next, but in 4 years his day comes. If he becomes a party to this sort of economy killing device in cahoots with John Kerry, Republicans had better find a suitable primary opponent to run against him, because if they don’t my guess is he’ll be looking for work after the 2014 election and SC will have a new Senator – even if he’s a conservative Democrat.

Oh, and Climate-gate?

Q: What are your thoughts on the scandal over the hacked e-mails from some prominent climate scientists, which many Republicans have claimed discredits the science showing that pollution is causing climate change?

A: Well, I never embraced this from that point of view. You will never convince me all these cars, and all these trucks, and all these power plants spewing out carbon, fossil fuels, day in and day out for 60 or 70 years is a good thing. It makes perfect sense to me that this amount of carbon pollution over a long period of time has had a detrimental effect on the environment. I don’t get wrapped up into how much is caused by man, or how much is caused by nature. I do believe pursuing clean air and clean water is a good thing for my generation to do.

Science – we don’t need no stinkin’ science. We’ll just “price carbon”, put the economy in the crapper and lo and behold, clean air will abound. The true statist’s answer to everything – more government, more cost, less freedom.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

18 Responses to Lindsey Graham And “Climate Change”

  • And you will never become energy independent until you price carbon.

    We already do that. Gasoline ain’t free. Neither is coal.

  • And you will never become energy independent until you price carbon.

    Well this does explain a lot. It explains Nancy Pelosi’s comments about Not being able to “drill our way out.” And there is a certain logic it to it.
    On the other hand, is it really ncessary to build this “Potemkin Village” called AGW in order to do this. What this really shows is that the body politic is out of ideas.

  • I didn’t think it possible for my opinion of Grahamnesty to sink any lower, but lo! he managed to do it.  I can only hope that the remarks quoted are taken grossly out of context, but it’s not much hope as they are exactly the sort of thing I would expect this brainless man to say.

    I started traveling with Sen. (John) McCain… and I went to the Arctic region with him and Sen. (Hillary Rodham) Clinton.

    Well, there’s your first mistake.  Why on earth Graham (or anybody else) would take John McCain’s opinion on much of anything much less voluntarily associate with HRC is beyond me.

    I came to the conclusion from listening to the scientists…

    Are you trying to imply that you understood a single thing they said to you?  And what “scientists” are they?  The sort who were cooking the books at CRU?  Here’s a tip: if they were introduced to him through HRC or even Yosemite Sam, they are likely complete hacks.

    Yet, after listening to the scientists, ol’ Lindsey wasn’t “sold” on the AGW thing: it’s just that all those nasty ol’ cars and trucks spouting that nasty ol’ pollution into the air just CAN’T be good, and so WE’VE GOTTA DO SOMETHING!*

    This is the reason the MiniTru loves to have this dimwit on the Sunday morning news shows: he can be suckered into anything.  Good grief, Bernie Maddoff must be kicking himself about now, wondering, “How did I miss THIS chump???”


    (*) Conflating “pollution” with AGW is a common bait-and-switch tactic with the left because we all want clean air.  However, wanting clean air is not the same as wanting to kneecap our economy through carbon regulation.

    • … and people kept saying .. “How did so many people get taken in by Bernie Maddoff ?”
      Just look to Copenhagen .. Obama and HRC are there representing us … good grief !!

    • Graham is a RINO.
      But its more than that.  He is one of several RINOs that they know they are on the Left end of the Republican Party but have the arrogance to portend that they represent the Party, whole.
      They have this arrogance because they know they dominate the leadership.  And come election time they will, relatively to the other republicans, get the more favorable press.  Or more press which is just as good.  Or both.
      We have the media picking our candidates.  Not just between Democrats and Republicans.  But even more influentially among Democrat (eg. Obama) or among Republicans (Graham, McCain).

      • jpm100We have the media picking our candidates.

        I think that this is a MAJOR problem.  MiniTru, unaccountable to anybody, has tremendous power in our country, and, as we know, it is dominated by lefties.  Hence, the candidates for national office are to a large extent selected by MiniTru (as you say).  No matter who wins elections, the agenda will be set to a large extent by MiniTru.  The success or failure of a policy, politician, or party will be determined to a large extent by MiniTru.  How well or poorly our economy runs, or how well or poorly we do in war, is determined to a large extent by MiniTru.

        I suggest that, for conservatives, libertarians and most “moderates”, the real enemy isn’t the democrat party: it is MiniTru.  I’m not sure what to do about this.  I believe in freedom of the press, and I certainly don’t think we ought to have government meddling in it under any pretext (“Fairness Doctrine”, anyone?).  But I recognize that MiniTru holds an effective monopoly that is bad for the country.  What to do?

  • Copenhagen: India and China have taken a united stand and walked out of the climate summit as Copenhagen talks fail. Tensions prevailed at the climate talks at Copenhagen today, as Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh and China premier Wen Jiabao walked out of the summit along with their respective delegations, as talks failed.

    Copenhagen just doesn’t seem to agree with Obama.

    • I just saw that, it’s pretty funny.  I guess Obama confirmed that he is an effective motivational speaker.  He demanded action, and by golly… he got action!  Sure, it wasn’t the action he was after, and it makes him look like an impotent fool, but he got action!
      I still don’t see how any of this is surprising, though.  Heavily-industrialized nations are discussing ways to cripple industrial output.  Nations that have been growing their industrial base and capacity see this and realize that if they opt out of the program, the businesses in those nations will relocate to their shores, increasing their industrial output.  This will bring with it an attendant increase in wealth and global power, which will serve them well once it becomes obvious what a sham the whole warming movement was.  Where is the downside for them?

  • First, as someone once said, we must define our terms. 
    Just what is this “energy independence” and why will it create more jobs than “energy dependence”? Is it the replacement of all fossil fuels, including domestic, or just imported oil? I get the impression that the definition is somewhat malleable.

    • As I stated before, the whole (carbon based) bio-fuels thing just doesn’t jibe with AGW

    • timactual – First, as someone once said, we must define our terms.

      Excellent point.  All politicians tend to speak in platitudes and like to use buzz words and catch phrases that elicit an emotional response.  “Energy independence” is such a term.  Nobody likes buying foreign oil: lefties hate it because burning oil (foreign or domestic) is an outrage to Mother Gaia.  Conservatives don’t like it because we’re not developing our own resources while paying money to less-than-friendly countries.  Everybody is for “energy independence”.

      But what Grahamnesty means and what most of us here mean are two VERY differnent things.  We want to develop our own resources (including new technology to reduce and eventually eliminate the need to use oil for fuel) as part of growing our economy, while people like him want to stifle our economy so we don’t need to use the resources in the first place.

  • If he meant nuclear power plants powering electric cars, undercutting gas powered cars, then maybe “energy independence” and less carbon emissions makes sense.

  • Obama has sharply shifted course from his predecessor George W. Bush, who vociferously opposed the current Kyoto Protocol and cast doubt on findings of UN scientists who say the world will face worsening droughts, floods and storms if rising temperatures go unchecked.

    Besides not submitting Kyoto to the Senate (which Clinton didn’t do either), can anyone cite a single example of Bush vociferously opposing Kyoto or casting doubt on findings of UN scientists ?

  • I wonder how Mr. Graham will feel when his constituents want to lynch everyone who voted for Crap and Trade – and hitting the American people with an additional $1,700 a year in energy costs.

  • Not to worry .. sounds like Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao must have kissed Obama .. before he did sex to him
    Obama announces an .. get this .. “meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough.”
    In the accord, the official said, “nations will list their actions and stand behind them.”
    Senator Graham will have a lot of work to do to get 60 votes out of that.

  • The energy problem is effectively solved. But apparently no one wants to talk about it:

    “One recent study by IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consulting group, calculated that the recoverable shale gas outside of North America could turn out to be equivalent to 211 years’ worth of natural gas consumption in the United States at the present level of demand, and maybe as much as 690 years. The low figure would represent a 50 percent increase in the world’s known gas reserves, and the high figure, a 160 percent increase.”

  • I think Lindsey Graham needs to find out what unemployment feels like. Once he is unceremoniously dismounted from his ideological high-horse he will be able to se things from the peasant point-of-view.
    2010: The Year We “Throw the Bums Out!”