Graham Backs “Cap And Trade” Energy Tax
U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham joined John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) Thursday in lending his support to a controversial energy tax hike – an appearance designed to provide U.S. President Barack Obama with a public relations boost.
Graham is the only Republican supporting the so-called “Cap and Trade” proposal, which Obama’s own Treasury Department estimates could cost the average American family as much as $4,000 a year in increased energy costs.
“Cap and Trade” purports to set up a government-controlled “emissions marketplace,” although it’s doubtful the legislation would do anything to curb global emissions. A version of the bill passed the U.S. House in June, with South Carolina’s Congressional delegation voting along party lines.
Nonetheless, this “bipartisan” announcement was timed to coincide with Obama’s arrival at a U.N. “Climate Change” summit in Copenhagen, Denmark – ostensibly giving the President a stronger negotiating hand.
Graham’s position – or rather positions – on “Cap and Trade” have caused him significant political headaches, particularly after FITS exposed some of the far left-wing elements that were underwriting his public relations defense (click here, here, here and here if you want to read our meticulously documented stories exposing the scam).
Graham has been selling his support for the bill by touting its emphasis on nuclear energy and offshore drilling, although the last time we checked those objectives could be pursued without implementing a massive new energy tax.
Comments
By Liberty for me on December 10th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
I dont think there is a big rant needed for this, I think a simple “WHAT A DICKHEAD” WILL DO
By No Name on December 10th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Pretty simple – he traded this Vote for Boeing and would have traded more but Olympia is beating him to it and she is easier to get along with.
Graham is a Dixiecrat at it’s best …trading votes for State jobs and projects like the Gitmo relocation.
2010 will see the one termer Obama brought down by Clinton Trojan Horse healthcare and the Bushwars…so he is using his lone vote for the benefits he can grab for the State.
How many County delegations will censure him now .
By Statesman on December 10th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Where is the data to support the $4,000 per household cost? Where is the data to support that it would or wouldn’t help curb global warming? I have heard these comments but not seen what backs them up.
By John on December 11th, 2009 at 7:06 am
Graham is not being truthful with us because he knows that the problem with nuclear power and off shore drilling is not the law, it is the civil lawsuits filed against these projects. There are many drilling projects sitting dormant as HUNDREDS of civil suits wind their way through the courts. These suits can take DECADES to solve, and Lindsey knows this.
Lindsay will give the Democrats what they want, and they give Graham what he ask for…knowing the law suits will nullify Lindsay’s gains. So they win and we lose, and lose big.
Graham knows all this…but he loves the limelight, the Sunday morning talk shows and the party invitations.
He has gone DC and he ain’t coming back. We have been screwed
By By the way on December 11th, 2009 at 7:25 am
Cap and trade was originally an idea pioneered under the Regan Administration and further developed under Bush senior as a market-based solution to curbing carbon emissions. It’s ironic that now that Democrats are on board Republicans think it’s a bad thing.
By If the enviros are upset... on December 11th, 2009 at 8:50 am
If the hard core enviros are mad about the drilling and nuclear components of the framework, Lindsey must be doing something right…
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/71757-enviros-upset-with-oil-drilling-in-senate-climate-plan
Enviros upset with oil drilling in Senate climate plan
By Ben Geman – 12/10/09 05:47 PM ET
Two environmental groups on Thursday criticized a proposed Senate compromise on climate and energy legislation over provisions that would expand U.S. oil-and-gas drilling.
Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) unveiled a broadly worded “framework” that merges greenhouse gas emissions caps with support for traditional and renewable energy sources.
“New offshore oil drilling in previously protected areas will put U.S. coastal economies and ocean wildlife at risk,” said Jacqueline Savitz, senior climate campaign director for the group Oceana, in a statement.
“Drilling makes no sense in legislation to address climate change. Such a bill should provide more incentives to develop clean, renewable energy and protect marine ecosystems,” she added.
The lawmakers are endorsing major new financial support for nuclear power in their framework as well. The framework does not provide details of the various proposals.
Environment America issued a statement that cheers the lawmakers’ endorsement of limits on greenhouse gas emissions and support for renewable energy and energy efficiency investments.
But Emily Figdor, director of the group’s federal global warming program, attacked the drilling and nuclear power plans.
“To really deliver on the promise of a clean energy economy, we must protect our treasured coasts from oil drilling, stop new investments in conventional coal plants and require existing coal plants to meet modern pollution standards, and not squander all-too-scarce federal dollars on expensive nuclear power plants that will set us back in the race to solve global warming,” she said.
By John Steinberger on December 11th, 2009 at 8:52 am
By the way – the cap & trade in the 90’s was for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides which caused acid rain, something that actually harms the environment. The technologies already existed to cope with these real pollutants – cyclone scrubbers for smokestacks and catalytic converters for cars. As the economy improved (from the Reagan income tax cuts and Clinton capital gains cuts), more people bought new cars which burned cleaner!
CO2 is not a pollutant – it’s plant food (remember photosynthesis from high school biology)! It makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere. The most prevalent “greenhouse gas” is water vapor – 96%, compared to 2% CO2.
Any scheme to tax CO2 will cripple the American economy and cause people to hang on to their old cars, which will actually make the air quality worse. It will shrink family budgets and cause runaway inflation. We’ll look back and say, “Remember when unemployment was only 12.1% in South Carolina?”
These brain-dead politicians are about to take a wrecking ball to our lives!
By dirtbogger on December 11th, 2009 at 8:59 am
(By the way), alot of us already see through the left, right paradigm. There is a shift coming!
By Light me Up on December 11th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Graham is pushing the dems to accept offshore drilling and nuclear power in return for carbon reductions. The bill passed in the House of Representatives was nothing but a pure cap on carbon — no energy independence provisions at all.
The environmental groups are up in arms today about this new framework. It is shattering their long-held view that we should do nothing but build more windmills and solar power panels to save the Earth.
And for those who say you could get offshore drilling and nuke without the carbon reduction language, well why hasn’t it been done already? We have been pushing for 20 years to get additional offshore drilling — even when gas was $4 a gallon — and didn’t get there. We haven’t build a new nuclear power plant in more than 30 years. Sure, we should do these things independent of this effort, but it is just not going to happen.
I also thought it was interesting that FITS didn’t mention Bill Timmerman from SCANA’s comments earlier this week. He pointed out that nuclear energy, which SCANA is seeking to build more nuclear power plants, was the cheapest energy source there is. Cheaper than coal. If we are able to build more nuclear power in South Carolina — in return for caps on carbon emissions — we will actually LOWER power bills in South Carolina.
By fitsnews on December 11th, 2009 at 9:09 am
LightMeUp,
We have always been on the record in favor of nuclear. It’s the greenies paying for all of Lindsey’s TV commercials who oppose it.
Our point is simple … you don’t have to tax people back to the stone age in order to pursue nuclear.
Just pursue it.
-FITS
By dirtbogger on December 11th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Nucular some time worries me, like if it were attacked, or if econonic collapse came, the effects it would have on maintenance. I would like to see more tax credits for efficency, and battery back up technology in the home to reduce peak demand, more efficient appliances, and a push for LED lighting that use less power and gives off more light than the CFL bulbs. LED lights some times use so little power that it will not even register through the meter. The CAP and Trade tax is just that, another tax.
By Liberty for me on December 11th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Nuclear is not the answer now either….it is way too expensive.The only reason we have any nuclear is that it is HIGHLY subsidized by the fed.If we want to come up with alternative fuels.We need to have a free market.Things that work will sell and things that the most efficent sell quicker…I think the future is Hydrogen or some way to use solar efficent.Get rid of subsidies..get rid of lobbyist for coal….keep the federal goverment out of it and it will fix itself.
By baked on December 11th, 2009 at 10:53 am
hydrogen? i smell an innovista fan.
By dirtbogger on December 11th, 2009 at 11:11 am
hydrogen, is not a bad way to go, we have an abndance of it and its something like 200 more times more explosive than gasoline, a lot of there!
By Liberty for me on December 11th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
By baked ..I know nothing about Inovista as I am not a native.But I am against federal projects if that is what you mean.All innovations must come from the free market to be efficient.
By Mike at the beach on December 12th, 2009 at 12:26 am
I hope that photo of Kerry all hugged up on Sugarbritches hangs around for a while!
By WorkingTommyC on December 12th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Once the scam mega-tax cap and trade mechanism is in place, the libs plan on using the EPA or new legislation to kill any new offshore drilling and Lindsey Gaham knows it. He just wants his cut and the associated publicity for his continued back-stabbing and shredding of the Constitution.
Graham is as corrupt as they come. People are finally realizing it. He couldn’t get reelected if the election were held today.
By SPQR_US on December 17th, 2009 at 3:41 am
Lindsey Graham is a traitor of the worst sort. He’s a disgusting little closeted ass-wipe. As soon as his little buddy McShamnesty loses his day job in a primary he’ll be all alone and might as well follow his spiritual guide Arlen Specter over to the DEMS where he can work on his knees as a DINO…