On Tuesday, the New York Times ran a piece that lays out the current state of climate legislation in the Senate.  According to the Times, 43 Senators are currently either a ‘yes’ or a ‘probable yes’ vote on the bill.  The Times reports that 67 Senators are ‘in play’ and 24 are ‘on the fence.’  Democrats will need to gather 60 votes to beat a filibuster once legislation comes to the floor.

              The greatest significance of the Times article, however, lies in the number of Republican Senators who, after Graham’s show of support, are open to supporting legislation.  Although Democrats hold the sixty seats necessary to defeat a filibuster in the senate, their margin is razor-thin and they will likely need to pick-off a few votes from the other side of the aisle.

              The Times specifically mentions a number of Republicans considered ‘in-play.’  Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe (both of Maine) are considered probable supporters.  Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) co-sponsored climate legislation in 2008 and is thus considered a possible supporter, as is Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN).

              Republicans, as a caucus, are likely to push for strong nuclear provisions in the final legislation.  Senator Graham has signaled as such, and the Times reported that Senators George Voinovich (R-OH), Judd Gregg (R-NH) and John McCain (R-AZ) are all possibilities if Democrats include nuclear provisions.  Senator McCain’s position, however, is muddied because of his unwillingness to support a bill that includes a ‘border provision.’  Many Democrats have been pushing for a border provision to protect American industries.

              Despite the complexities surrounding McCain’s position, those who support strong climate and energy legislation should feel a sense of optimism: currently there exists a strong possibility of bipartisan support for strong climate and energy legislation.

Senator Graham declared his support by co-writing an Op-Ed with Senator John Kerry (D-MA)—the author of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act—in the New York Times.  In the piece, the two Senators proclaimed that they “refuse to accept” that the US cannot be the global leader on climate change.

Kerry and Graham published a number of principles they agree upon:

• • Climate change is a real threat to US national and economic security.

• • Climate change is an opportunity to reduce US dependence on fossil fuels.

• • A clean energy economy will create millions of jobs, either in the US if American leads or overseas if America doesn’t.

Kerry and Graham write that the way forward must include the following:

• • Aggressive action, with a market-based system, to reduce the gases that cause climate change.

• • Comprehensive investment in wind, solar, and nuclear power, and increased onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration.

• • Becoming the “Saudi Arabia of clean coal.”

• • Consideration of a border tax on imports from foreign nations that do not meet agreed-upon clean energy standards.

• • Establishing a floor and a ceiling for emission allowances to protect consumers and businesses from rising energy costs.

The senators closed their argument by invoking the Operation FREE message that climate change and US dependence on fossil fuels pose severe threats to US national security.  Their goal is to “pass on to future generations a strong economy, a clean environment and an energy-independent nation.”

With bipartisan support in the Senate, these goals are more than attainable.

Gallup found that 60% of Americans are worried either a “great deal” or a “fair amount” by global warming.  More importantly, however, 94% of 18 to 29 year olds—the Millennial Generation—believe the US must take “extreme measures” immediately to reverse the environmental damage already done by global warming.

Operation FREE Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are a core part of the country’s Millennial Generation and are carrying a specific message of the dangers of global warming:

Global warming is a threat multiplier that causes heat waves, drought, disease, wild fires, stronger storms, and, eventually, mass migration.  These effects will increase the threat and frequency of violent conflicts.

Operation FREE is dedicated to reducing America’s dependence on fossil fuels and generating clean, renewable, domestic energy sources.  Operation FREE vets have taken their message directly to the White House and the US Senate, joined Senators Barbara Boxer and John Kerry during their announcement of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, and are engaging Americans across the country in this discussion.

The Qom plant represents the third known location involved with Iran’s nuclear program.  Earlier this week, Iran also tested another medium-range ballistic missile—a possible delivery mechanism.

What’s more worrisome than Iran’s nuclear ambitions?  Iran provides “funding, weapons, training, and sanctuary to numerous terrorist groups.”  The State Department has referred to Iran as the world’s “most active state sponsor of terrorism.”

Iran is a rogue nation with dangerous ambitions.  Unfortunately, Iran appears to be making progress towards reaching those goals.  The question is: are we complicit?

Iran is the world’s fourth-largest oil producer and is reliant on the oil sector to provide the majority of government revenues.  Iran exports 2.8 million barrels of oil per day and a $5 per barrel increase in the cost of oil results in a net gain of $7.5 billion.  That money is used to build the nuclear installations at Natanz, Arak and Qom and to fund terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

As the world’s largest oil market, the U.S. has the power to reverse Iran’s advances.  The US represents 25% of global oil demand and, therefore, can affect global oil prices by removing a substantial percentage of demand from the market-place.

We are, to a certain degree, complicit in Iran’s nuclear program.  We work with other nation’s to impose sanctions and provide incentives for Iran to jettison its nuclear ambitions, but at the same time we tie ourselves to the very resources that act as fundraisers for Iran’s programs.

The good news is we can change course.  Yesterday Senators Barbara Boxer and John Kerry introduced the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act and this bill is a good first step towards U.S. energy independence.  And in the process, it will reduce Iran’s ability to fund terrorist organizations and its nuclear program.

Here are some examples:

• A warming climate will melt the Himalayan Glaciers—a source of water for both Pakistan and India.  The world will look to the U.S. military to prevent a water-conflict between these two nuclear powers.
• A reduction in life-sustaining resources will also force large populations to migrate in search of food and water.  This will lead to increased religious and ethnic confrontations between unfamiliar groups.
• A lack of resources will accelerate the rate of destabilization in weak states, resulting in fertile recruiting and training grounds for terrorist groups.

History has shown that we will frequently encounter conditions that require us to fight a necessary war—there will always be a fanatic hiding somewhere in a cave and there will always be mad men who control the apparatus of a state.  We are lucky to have millions of brave men and women who volunteer to fight on our behalf in these circumstances.  The very least we can do in return is ensure that we work to minimize the reasons why they fight.  We have an opportunity to act on climate change, to protect our military and to improve our national security, all in one-fell-swoop.

Next week, Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Kerry (D-MA) will introduce a bill in the Senate to combat climate change and to change our energy policy.  This is a necessary step for ensuring our national security.  And we can do our military a great service by passing this legislation.

Front groups opposing sound scientific evidence of climate change are continuing to pop up on the Internet. “Plants Need CO2” (http://plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=216) and “CO2 is Green” (http://co2isgreen.org/default.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1) are claiming that CO2—at any level—is good for the environment. They argue climate change is not real and, therefore, not a problem. It is shocking that people are still trying to disprove settled science.

Here is one falsity purported by these groups: “If the U.S. moves to the most expensive energy sources, the economic impact will be suicidal.”  The truth is the Congressional Budget Office’s latest estimate (mid-Sept. 2009) says the cost would be $0.44 per day per household. (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10573/09-17-Greenhouse-Gas.pdf).

The possibility of not acting on climate change and remaining dependent on fossil fuels are the real danger. America spends a billion dollars a day on fossil fuels because we import 70% of those fuels. Not only does this negatively impact our economy but our over-reliance on oil from hostile nations helps our enemies, and puts our national security at risk.

Here is a second false accusation: “The reduction in U.S. economic activity will reduce U.S. employment.”  Again, the truth is quite different from the claim.  In its estimate the CBO also states that Waxman-Markey will have minimal long-term employment effects and will create 1.7 million good-paying, green, American jobs.

While the front groups state that without CO2, no life will exist, they fail to mention the negative impacts of too much CO2.  Stronger tropical storms and longer droughts are real consequences of an atmosphere over-saturated with CO2.  Hurricane Katrina displaced 1.1 million people and destroyed a great city. Climate change causes drought and threatens to dry up the Ogallala aquifer, which supplies 70%-90% of the irrigation water used by major grain producing states such as Texas, Nebraska, and Kansas.

We have moved on from the debate of whether climate change exists and are now addressing the long term consequences. The facts presented by these front groups are juvenile and are moving us backwards. The question is no longer whether climate change exists, but how we are going to combat it.

President Obama spoke this morning and called climate change a serious, urgent and growing threat (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-UN-Secretary-General-Ban-Ki-moons-Climate-Change-Summit/).  He followed his assessment of the threat by touting U.S. advances on pollution control and reduction.

The Obama administration announced earlier in the week that, for the first time in history, they will track total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.  The administration is also making considerable investments to double the generating capacity of renewable energy sources in three years and to increase the fuel economy of new cars and trucks while simultaneously reducing their carbon emissions.  The President also committed to persuading the international community to phase out fossil fuel subsidies at the G-20.  While attention going into the meeting was fixated on President Obama, the Chinese garnered praise for laying out specific plans to reduce their emissions levels.

Chinese President Hu Jintao announced that his country will derive 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020 (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iVseyRMTWU-tI-9-sDhfCCJEk4vgD9ASDTP00).  China also committed to boosting its forest cover and increasing its “climate-friendly technologies,” but it has yet to commit to binding cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.  Together, the U.S. and China represent 40% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Today’s announcements have some believing China is passing the U.S. as the world leader on global warming.  UN climate chief Yvo de Boer referred to the U.S. as “the big question mark.”

Much of the speculation about the intent of the U.S. is derived from the Senate’s reluctance to address climate legislation.  Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Kerry (D-MA) plan to introduce a bill next week, but many see the possibility of passing a large, complex bill after the health care fight as slim-to-none (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27251.html).

The world has focused its attention on the climate.  The U.S.—more specifically the U.S. Senate—has before it the opportunity to either regain the leadership mantel on climate change or to cede it to the Chinese.