Did Lindsey Graham sink the climate bill?

[wtmusic]

According to Joe Romm, the answer is no - the real culprits are anti-science ideologues and lack of White House commitment.

An interesting analysis.

"If email, comments on CP, and some eco-bloggers are to be believed, conservative Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has been planning to walk on the climate bill for a long time — perhaps, nefariously, from the very beginning! And I certainly understand where that sentiment is coming from, given that the GOP strategy on health care and financial reform has been to feign interest and then bolt.

In fact, however, that view lacks plausibility, as The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait explained in his Sunday column, “Lindsey Graham Is Right.” Indeed, the WashPost’s Ezra Klein argues today that Graham, “is not only right to be annoyed, but as far I can tell, is actually right.”

I spoke to a Senate staffer today who is familiar with Graham’s multi-month efforts with Kerry and Lieberman and the White House to develop a bill. He said Graham has been “completely genuine.” Long-time readers of this blog know that Graham has made stronger statements than almost anybody on the Democratic side about this bill (reposted below). He could easily have walked away months ago, say, when Scott Brown won the Massachusetts special election or when the Dems used the reconciliation process to pass health care."

http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/26/chait-and-klein-lindsey-graham-is-right/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Climate+Progress%29

[havocmom]

1. If climate bill might put restrictions on corporations....

I think the pols on the Hill have a rotation roster of who wears the black hat on each issue so the status quo is never really disturbed while the bulk of the pols can pretend they tried.

Yep, I am that cynical anymore

[ananda]

2. Me too.

So cynical.

[pinto]

3. Interesting takes. I heard a lot of speculation about Reid and immigration reform yesterday,

but little background on the climate bill. (Or I missed it.) Thanks for the post.

[Statistical]

4. The sad thing is this will just empower the far right (do nothing) portion of Republican party.

Graham did try to work for compromise in climate change bill. The trio worked to ensure it would actually pass 60 votes needed not just be put out there with a lot of fanfair and die.

Reid pushing immigration ahead of climate change at the last minute is pure political one-upsmanship. He saw an opportunity to score points after Arizona legislation and dumped climate change to back burner. After all its only the planet who gives a damn.

This weakens moderates in Republican power and empowers ideologues. Graham failed attempt at compromise will be potrayed as weak and used by his challenger (who will be far MORE conservative on every issue).

Reid fucked this one up big. I likely will get flame for it but I don't care. I call em like I see em.

[wtmusic]

5. No flames here.

Reid will get dumped in November and AFAIAC it's none too soon. A silver lining is that the cap-emission allowance scheme was overly complicated to begin with.

[Statistical]

6. The pesmimist in me says Reid will barely eeke out a win. n/t

[wtmusic]

8. Republicans could conceivably turn Yucca into a negative for Harry

$100M/year in extra revenue is looking sweeter and sweeter to Nye County moderates. We may see that site used for reprocessing after all.

[Kolesar]

9. I agree that Reid pushing immigration was folly but disagree that Reid should lose in November*

There is nothing good about him losing in November.
*in the other post.

[kristopher]

12. The pronuclear folks want Reid out because he got Obama to finally closed Yucca Mtn. nt

[Kolesar]

16. Nevada should reelect him to show their gratitude...eom

[kristopher]

7. Except that Grahm did the same thing on coopertion over an immigration bill

He was working with Dems on an immigration bill and dropped it because he didn't want Dems to take up health care.

It is a pattern of behavior.

[Statistical]

10. Graham is an ass but a bill is better than no bill and Graham is a necessary evil to get 60 votes.

There will be no reconciliation route for Climate Change Bill. Even if you assume 95% Democratic support (not going to get votes in coal country or from all Blue Dogs) that means 6-8 Republicans are needed. Reality of the situation and it is unlikely to change in our favor in 2010.

The bill is weak, $25 per ton of carbon isn't high enough but it is a lot better than $0.00 per ton of carbon.

Even more important it shows utilities that carbon is no longer free. It provides them a glimpse into the future. Yeah it might only be $25 in 2013 but it will likely go up and up and up. Not only will fossil fuel prices continue to rise but carbon prices rising creates a one two punch of fossil fuel powered thermal plants. Utilities are long term planners. $25 per ton carbon today likely mean $100 - $200 per ton carbon by the time a plant built today reached end of life.

Without the bill we push the ball down the court until after the elections and if the elections go against us the bill in 2011 may be weaker than the one we could pass right now. So a delay for an even weaker bill.

Reid totally fucked this one up and it shows where his priorities are (not with climate change).

[kristopher]

11. He was never going to break with the Repubs anyway. Health care redux.

[Statistical]

13. Health care is different than energy. It isn't an either or proposition.

Graham is a big supporter of nuclear power. A carbon tax/fine/cost helps nuclear power. It directly raises the price of its largest competitor: coal. Heatlhcare was very polarizing issuing. For vs Against.

Energy is much more diverse. Ironically the interests of wind lobby and nuclear lobby are aligned when it comes to a carbon tax.

Now if he had his way (70% Republican control of Senate) the bill likely would be much different. Much more support for nuclear and less for wind however he is a realist. Realists get things done. It is a way for him to advance his agenda even in a Democratically controlled Congress.

[kristopher]

14. "Graham is a big supporter of nuclear power" - Of course he is, he is a REPUBLICAN.

[Statistical]

15. Nuclear power has bipartisan support.

Still is undermines your position that Graham would allow the bill to die by voting against cloture.

Is Obama a Republican?





You just don't realize your position is a minority and rapidly shrinking. It isn't 2001 anymore. Nuclear energy support among Democrats has gone from 35% to 51% in a decade.

[kristopher]

17. That presentation of data is not the sentiment that the underlying poll reveals

That presentation of data is not the sentiment that the underlying poll reveals. First, here is a clear image of public support for nuclear:

Associated Press/Stanford University Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Nov. 17-29, 2009. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"In general, would you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants at this time?"
Favor 49 Oppose 48 Unsure 3

***********************************************************************

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

What the graphs' stats used actually charts is how worried people are about energy and climate. The underlying poll asks if nuclear should be "one of the ways" to provide electricity for the US.

Influences on that graph:
1) Nuclear already IS one of the ways, so the reader must be in favor of decommissioning nuclear power in a time of uncertainty regarding energy security and climate change to be "opposed".

2) The answers are divided into 4 categories; and what isn't shown is that the shift to "strongly support" has only changed a couple of percentage points.

3) When you compare the Gallup poll with the two posted above (those are typical of polling on the issue) you can see the way energy security is a higher priority than environmental issues for those who state direct support for nuclear power as it is identical to the results for building more coal plants, and tracks the approval of drilling for petroleum closely.

The use of that graph is a standard attempt to create foster "the bandwagon effect"


I wonder what the results of polling would be if respondents were shown this graph first:


Full cost report by Cooper here:
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

[Statistical]

18. Majority of Democrats support nuclear power.

Your wishing doesn't change that. The long term trend has been towards more and more support not less and less.

Your poll was taken before Obama (an influential Democrat) came out in favor of nuclear power.

[kristopher]

19. Repeating it doesn't make it true

That presentation of data is not the sentiment that the underlying poll reveals. First, here is a clear image of public support for nuclear:

Associated Press/Stanford University Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Nov. 17-29, 2009. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"In general, would you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants at this time?"
Favor 49 Oppose 48 Unsure 3

***********************************************************************

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

What the graphs' stats used actually charts is how worried people are about energy and climate. The underlying poll asks if nuclear should be "one of the ways" to provide electricity for the US.

Influences on that graph:
1) Nuclear already IS one of the ways, so the reader must be in favor of decommissioning nuclear power in a time of uncertainty regarding energy security and climate change to be "opposed".

2) The answers are divided into 4 categories; and what isn't shown is that the shift to "strongly support" has only changed a couple of percentage points.

3) When you compare the Gallup poll with the two posted above (those are typical of polling on the issue) you can see the way energy security is a higher priority than environmental issues for those who state direct support for nuclear power as it is identical to the results for building more coal plants, and tracks the approval of drilling for petroleum closely.

The use of that graph is a standard attempt to create foster "the bandwagon effect"


I wonder what the results of polling would be if respondents were shown this graph first:


Full cost report by Cooper here:
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

[Statistical]

20. "Repeating it doesn't make it true"

:rofl:

As you lie and spin.

The reality is THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS & DEMOCRATS SUPPORT NUCLEAR POWER.

Please show me a more recent poll that says otherwise.

[kristopher]

21. Show any properly worded poll that supports your assertion - you can't.

The only thing you ever post is the Gallup graph and it doesn't support your position. Show me a clearly worded national poll where the choice is unambiguous.

First, here is a clear image of public support for nuclear:

Associated Press/Stanford University Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Nov. 17-29, 2009. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.
"In general, would you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants at this time?"
Favor 49 Oppose 48 Unsure 3

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

What the graphs stats used charts is actually how worried people are about energy and climate. The underlying poll asks if nuclear should be "one of the ways" to provide electricity for the US.

Influences on that graph:
1) Nuclear already IS one of the ways, so the reader must be in favor of decommissioning nuclear power in a time of uncertainty regarding energy security and climate change to be "opposed".

2) The answers are divided into 4 categories; and what isn't shown is that the shift to "strongly support" has only changed a couple of percentage points.

3) When you compare the Gallup poll with the two posted above (those are typical of polling on the issue) you can see the way energy security is a higher priority than environmental issues for those who state direct support for nuclear power as it is identical to the results for building more coal plants, and tracks the approval of drilling for petroleum closely.

The use of that graph is a standard attempt to create foster "the bandwagon effect"


I wonder what the results of polling would be if respondents were shown this graph first:


Full cost report by Cooper here:
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

[Statistical]

22. So more people support building nuclear reactors than oppose it.

That was before Obama came out in favor of nuclear power.

What is also useful in polls (any poll on any subject) is the trend.

The exact same question was asked by Gallup 10 years ago and 46% of Americans (and 35% of Democrats) supported it.
The same question today gains 62% support (and 51% of Democrats).

It is clear over the last decade the trend has been in favor of nuclear power. Support has been rising about 1.5% annually.

So while you may believe the question is vague (I don't it is pretty clear), if so it was equally vague 10 years ago. Today roughly 16% more Americans support the same position.

[kristopher]

23. Which shows increased concerns about energy security, not ...

...specific support for nuclear technology as the answer. Saying "all of the above" is not "supporting nuclear power".

1) Nuclear already IS one of the ways, so the reader must be in favor of decommissioning nuclear power in a time of uncertainty regarding energy security and climate change to be "opposed".

2) The answers are divided into 4 categories; and what isn't shown is that the shift to "strongly support" has only changed a couple of percentage points.

3) When you compare the Gallup poll with the two posted above (those are typical of polling on the issue) you can see the way energy security is a higher priority than environmental issues for those who state direct support for nuclear power as it is identical to the results for building more coal plants, and tracks the approval of drilling for petroleum closely.

The use of that graph is a standard attempt to create foster "the bandwagon effect"


I wonder what the results of polling would be if respondents were shown this graph first:


Full cost report by Cooper here:
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

[Statistical]

24. Regardless of the rational the support remains.

You seems to discredit any support that is based only on energy security.

Maybe the majority of people who support nuclear power ARE more concerned with energy security however that doesn't change the fact:
MAJORITY OF AMERICAN SUPPORT NUCLEAR POWER.

I don't care why a reactor gets built instead of a coal plant.
a) environmental
b) energy security
c) simply CO2 emissions
d) fear of coal monsters

either way the end result is the same a lower carbon America.

I wonder what the results of polling would be if respondents were shown this graph first:
If shown only that graph and nothing else, no conflicting reports, not DOE estimates or MIT report then it would be lower.

Generally speaking that is called push-polling. :rofl:

WIND - NUCLEAR - SOLAR - EFFICIENCY - GEOTHERMAL - CCS