Lindsey Graham's actions on climate change in the last few days have set the greenosphere abuzz. First, he penned an op-ed, with John Kerry, where he committed to work with Democrats to pass a comprehensive climate-change bill. Then he got called a wussypants for his trouble (along with a lot of unwarranted and nasty things), and was yelled at by foamy-mouthed loons at a town-hall event in South Carolina. Environmentalists have heralded Graham's oped as a game changer on the environment. They're probably right. Graham's advocacy of climate change legislation is a huge boost for the Boxer-Kerry bill (although he hasn't officially endorsed it). But it's not unexpected.
For starters, Graham, who has long demonstrated a willingness to work across the aisle, is starting to look more John McCain that John McCain these days. As Chuck Todd, et al. point out on First Read, "He, more than McCain, this year has shown a tendency to do two things McCain made famous over the last decade: buck his party (see Sonia Sotomayor vote) and talk bluntly about former President Bush ... Graham, himself close to McCain, has, at a minimum, set himself apart a bit as an unpredictable critic." Although Graham opposed previous attempts at comprehensive climate-change legislation, he's been slowly edging away from his old positions, even cosponsoring Democrat Senator Tom Carper's Clean Air Planning Act of 2006 that would have limited pollutants emitted by power plants.
Graham's support for Kerry's bill is indicative of the peculiar politics of climate change. Although there is a traditional left/right split on this issue, the dynamic of more importance to getting legislation passed is regional in nature. As I've written previously, when it comes to the environment, rust-belt Democrats can sound a lot more like Republicans than moderate Republicans do. That's because legislation has markedly different economic impacts region by region. For example, Graham comes from South Carolina, where earlier this year regulators gave the green light for the state's largest utility to construct two new nuclear reactors. Now those reactors have to go through a lengthy approval process by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that will take years to complete. Kerry's bill would streamline that process, altering regulations so that nuclear-power plants can be constructed more quickly, thus bringing jobs and dollars to South Carolina sooner. Graham is certainly motivated by a belief that global warming must be stopped, but legislation that spurs job growth in his state isn't a bad reward for his efforts.
Other Republicans may find themselves, like Graham, seeing a significant upside to climate-change legislation. Duke Energy is considering partnering with French nuclear vendor Areva to construct a large nuclear facility in economically depressed Piketon, Ohio. The plant would be a boon to Piketon, bringing thousands of blue- and white-collar jobs to a region that's been bleeding for years. Republican Sen. George Voinovich would probably like to be able to claim some credit for ushering that in. Georgia's Johnny Isakson and Arizona's McCain are also ardent proponents of nuclear power and may be enticed to support a bill that encourages the nuclear industry. And if the legislation loosens regulations on offshore oil drilling in the name of reducing dependence on foreign oil, then Alaska's Lisa Murkowski and Florida's George LeMieux might start being a lot more interested. (Even though few companies would actually take up the opportunity—offshore drilling is enormously expensive.)
But these regional dynamics cut both ways. On the flip side, coal-state Democrats will be under enormous pressure to oppose moves to shift power generation away from coal. That's probably why industry rag Environment & Energy Daily (E&E) put Jon Tester from Montana, where nearly one quarter of America's coal reserves are found, on its list of climate-change fence sitters. Both West Virginia Democratic senators also make that list, which is unsurprising seeing that the coal industry is responsible for 40,000 jobs in their state, and 99 percent of their electricity is coal-fired.
If the bill has any chance at succeeding, it must be a bipartisan enterprise, because the Democrats simply don't have the numbers in their caucus. E&E has already moved Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu into the "probably a no vote" category, and leadership should probably cut Blanche Lincoln some slack otherwise she'll most likely lose her seat, and be replaced by a red-blooded conservative. Kerry and Boxer will need four Republicans at the very least to vote for their bill. Fortunately for them, region will almost certainly trump ideology for some fence sitters.
