The Obama administration does not need to threaten congressional Republicans with command-and-control carbon dioxide regulations in order to bring them to the table for a bipartisan climate change bill, one of the Senate's top GOP voices on energy said this afternoon.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said there were more powerful incentives for the GOP to cooperate, including rising oil prices -- which he says will push energy to the legislative front burner and require members of both parties to compromise.
"How do you get a nuclear energy program started without dealing with the environmental community?" he asked. "How do you get domestic exploration expanded without dealing with the environmental community? I'm dying to know that."
Graham worked for months last Congress with Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) to craft a carbon reduction bill that never received a vote on the Senate floor. Still, he signed his name last week to a bill Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) sponsored that would prevent U.S. EPA from regulating those same emissions.
Democrats last year raised the specter of EPA regulation of smokestack industries to encourage their Republican counterparts to collaborate on climate and energy, but only Graham participated. In the end, Graham withdrew from the measure before it was introduced, citing a disagreement with the Democratic Senate leadership.
Graham said this afternoon that by disarming EPA, Congress would not be making climate and energy legislation harder to pass. He noted that some Democrats have expressed concerns about EPA authority.
"It was going to get pre-empted anyway, at least for a couple of years," he said of the agency's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. "You've got [West Virginia Sen. Jay] Rockefeller and other Democrats who don't want the EPA to regulate carbon. So it's not much of a threat. I think $5-a-gallon gasoline is the best incentive I know to find a rational energy plan that would create jobs, make us more energy independent, clean up the air."
But only one Senate Democrat -- Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia -- has agreed to co-sponsor the Inhofe bill. Many others say they still prefer a bill sponsored by Rockefeller that would place a temporary stay on EPA authority.
For his part, Rockefeller had hoped to draw at least some Republican support to his EPA delay bill, but none has materialized. He told reporters today that he did not blame Republicans for opting for the more far-reaching bill, though he said it was "not a good idea."
"I'm not disappointed in people; I'm disappointed in ideas," he said.
Some Republicans have also cited Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown as a possible Democratic supporter of the Inhofe legislation, but he has said consistently that he is not interested in stripping EPA of its regulatory authority; he simply wants the White House to protect U.S. manufacturers.
"I'm trying to find a way to work with the president," Brown said. "I want these EPA rules to go ahead if jobs are protected and we don't export jobs and export CO2. And we have to figure out a way to do this, and that's why we're working with the White House."
Brown acknowledged that the White House probably lacked the statutory authority to impose de facto tariffs on carbon-intensive goods that enter the United States from countries that lack comparable regulations. He has said such "border protection" measures should be considered.
Brown refused to say whether he would support a bill like Inhofe's or Rockefeller's if the White House does not find a way to protect industry.
"I'm not going to 'might might might,' because I want to see what they're going to do," he said of Obama administration officials.
