Editorials Mull Effects of Reid-Graham Argument on Legislation

Editorials on climate legislation published today targeted the scheduling argument between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., as the most immediate cause for delaying the bill being prepared by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Graham.

The New York Times saw danger in the "squabble," writing: "Unless Lindsey Graham and Harry Reid can patch up a needless feud, the Senate could end up doing neither (immigration or climate bills). That would be a terrible outcome, since nobody knows what the appetite for either task will be after the November elections. Truth is, Mr. Reid and Mr. Graham need each other. And there is no reason this has to be a zero-sum game."

The Washington Post agreed with Graham's position. Graham had "derided Democratic leaders for opening the way to take up immigration reform before the climate bill, calling the move 'a cynical political ploy' and claiming that it endangered the climate effort. He has a point." Noting that work on the climate bill was far more advanced than efforts on immigration, the Post wrote: "Politics aside, it's past time that Congress dealt with climate change. Businesses face stifling uncertainty about the shape of inevitable climate legislation. World leaders wonder when America will finally lead on global warming. And every year Congress waits to legislate, adequately curbing emissions will get harder and more expensive. Any comprehensive climate bill will require the support of at least a few Republicans to pass. We hope Mr. Graham and his Democratic partners find a way not to miss this opportunity."

The Washington Times said the policy "collision has left the strategy of the global-warming theocracy in pieces, at least for the moment." The editorial said the climate change bill, "which contains a version of the despised cap-and-trade mechanism for taxing carbon, aims to cut emissions of pollution-causing greenhouse gases 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. It also purports to expand domestic production of oil, natural gas and nuclear power. Those provisions sound nice, but recent delaying tactics by the Obama administration on the future of offshore drilling and the storage of nuclear waste cast doubt on prospects for more domestic energy production."