28 October 2009

What is Graham's Bill?

In The Hill, Senator Lindsey Gram (R-SC) talks about the sort of climate bill he'd support:
"I firmly believe that if you had offshore drilling provisions, you would get more votes because people would see energy independence being achieved, and they would tolerate an emission control bill," Graham said. "You don't have to believe in climate change to vote for the bill I'm talking about. You just have to believe that controlling carbon is the way to get to energy independence."
All who believe that offshore drilling is relevant to energy independence please raise your hands? The article explains that:
The specifics of Graham's plan would allow for "environmentally responsible" offshore drilling, revenues of which would be split between states as well as the federal government, the latter of which would use the revenue to reinvest in clean technology.

Graham was not specific as to how his plan would specifically regulate carbon emissions.


  1. Roger,

    In the short term, we are going to be using a lot of FFs no matter what we do. Thus getting more oil domestically is better for our economy.

    In the long term se need cleaner domestic sources of energy. My favorite (and one of Dr. James Hansen's favorite) is LFTR, the "green" nuclear. LFTR needs to update it's technology from the 60's when it was first demonstrated. Taxes on new offshore oil can provide the needed funding.

    Seems pretty clear and a good idea to me. What am I missing?


  2. Sounds like a quid pro quo for the oil industry. Where has it been shown that off shore drilling is really going to make a significant change in our energy "independence?" If that is what we want, just check out the latest Sci Am article, drink some cool-aid, and start building 3.8 million wind generators.

  3. Lindsey Graham lets the cat-out-of-the-bag when he talks tax revenue. The Politicos don’t care about the environment. Just like Cap and Trade, the Graham bills is all about Government Revenue and little about environmental concerns.

    The Cap and Trade Bill as well as other bills of like-kind have other agenda driven motivations with the “environment” merely the vehicle. If you look into the Tides Foundation and The Center for American Progress you’ll find some agenda items that have nothing to do with environmental concerns. Yet the “environment” is the vehicle to achieve the agenda.

  4. I would recommend a legislation "time out".
    Cap'n'trade is a questionable approach to decarbonizing in a meaningful way (so that all countries are willing to do so- fundamentally a technological problem.)
    When people (reasonably) question the questionable policy, they are offered treats (of questionable merit to the overall goal) to go along. This all adds up, in my view, to intellectually incoherent public policy- driven by the need to appear cool in Copenhagen.

    Help! Give this problem to EPA and/or take a legislative time-out!

  5. We need only examine a very few untapped sources of domestic hydrocarbons to get us to about 7 times the total proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. And, that’s without even mentioning our gigantic natural gas resources.

    Given that fact, it is just plain stupid to strangle our domestic economy and leave ourselves (and the rest of the world) at the mercy (or lack thereof) of Middle East tyrants.

    But, nobody -- least of all the Left leaning Pew Research Center -- ever accused Dems of being well informed on the issues facing our country.

    But, even if Dims don’t care about jobs, security and economic well-being, maybe they could rally around the enormous increase in tax revenues (unless, of course, their real goal is to spend us into oblivion without regard for the revenue side).

  6. Hi Roger - here is something that I ghost-wrote (?) awhile ago, and you read. It relies heavily on Washington Post and WSJ quotes on recoverable oil possibilities and potential revenue for alternative energy push.

    For the next 15 years or more, it is unlikely that the economy can be totally weaned from oil. As one of my colleagues said: “Even assuming that I can afford to buy a hybrid plug-in car and not a used car in the future, I will still need to put oil in that tank. Whether I get 20 or 60 miles to the gallon, a gallon of gas will still be required for the foreseeable future.”
    And demand is not about to diminish: efficiency gains in the developed world will be offset by an influx of new users and economic growth in the developing world.
    As the WSJ suggests, royalties for the federal government on off shore drilling alone – without touching ANWR -- could be substantial, as much as 2.6 trillion dollars. Two unlikely bedfellows, The Journal and the Washington Post go onto say that the current estimates on recoverable oil is “certainly too conservative.”
    The WSJ writes: “We don't know what's actually out there because analysis with modern equipment has been forbidden by Congress in many areas for 26 years. Exploration technology is considerably more advanced today.”
    The Washington Post writes: “The demand for energy is going up, not down. And for a long time to come, even as alternative sources of energy are developed, more oil will be needed.”
    I would suggest that -- right there – we have the seed money for an all out technological research and development push.

    best, JC Houlihan (pen)