THE ISSUE: Sen. Graham and climate-energy legislation

OUR OPINION: Legislation is coming, should balance environmental, business interests

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham is a Republican who has shown over and over that he is willing to be a leader in building a consensus among conservatives, moderates and liberals. He is to be commended for his role.

Most recently, Graham has come under fire for his support of energy independence-climate control legislation. Critics say attempts to limit pollution by economic incentives will increase the cost of energy production, yield higher bills for consumers and result in job losses. Many, including a number of the Republican gubernatorial candidates speaking during last week’s debate in Orangeburg, are taking Graham to task for his active role in promoting legislation that will force control of carbon emissions.

The senator has his supporters, a number of whom have gone public with displays of support. They contend Graham is right to stand up for South Carolina in the energy debate.

On Nov. 3, Michael Couick, president and chief executive officer of the Electric Cooperatives of South Carolina, said to stand in opposition to energy-climate legislation is to risk resulting legislation that may be good for California and larger states but not good for South Carolina.

“If you’re not at the table, you’re on the table,” Couick said in support of Graham’s leading role, which has seen him stand publicly with Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts in promoting legislation that can be supported by both Democrats and Republicans.

Graham makes a key point: Climate control legislation is destiny. While he says he does not side with doomsayers over global warming, he is convinced that carbon pollution is having a negative impact on the environment. Those who deny any impact from carbon emissions are being shortsighted.

“Regardless of whether you view climate change as a real threat or some grand hoax, carbon will eventually be regulated — either through congressional action or by the EPA,” Graham writes in a column appearing on this page today.

He says Congress should reach a consensus and not leave regulation to federal bureaucrats. Presently proposed legislation falls short of the mark, he says.

“Both sides prefer to talk past each other. They have yet to embrace the fact that if we work together, we can balance environmental protection with the needs of business.”

On the need for energy independence, Graham points to an expense of $440 billion on foreign oil last year and more dependence than ever on foreign sources. Dealing with the issue, which is a threat to national security, is vital.

Graham says legislation stands to benefit South Carolina and the state’s economy.

He points to the Upstate, where “General Electric is leading the way in alternative energy sources by manufacturing windmill turbines. Clemson University’s ICAR has an opportunity to be the national model for producing the car of the future. The University of South Carolina is on the cutting-edge in hydrogen fuel cell energy. We have ongoing bio-mass and alternative fuel research making real progress in the Pee Dee region.”

And he says the resurgence in nuclear energy is most important for South Carolina, with four companies already looking to build new nuclear reactors here.

“The climate change debate affords us a prime opportunity to address ... issues in a way that benefits our economy, national security and environment,” Graham says.

The senator should push forward despite the criticism. He is representing the vital interests of South Carolina, the nation and the planet.

You must be logged in to comment.