Senator Murkowski praises Kerry Graham plan of climate change

[karynnj]

The climate train is leaving the station. It is becoming increasingly likely Congress will pass a comprehensive energy bill that includes a shrinking cap and a rising carbon price (with a price collar). Key swing Senators are moving away from obstructionism toward a bipartisan deal. Those who stand on the sidelines not only risk ending up on the wrong side of history for this momentous bill, but they risk the more tangible benefits of sitting at the negotiating table.
<snip>
(They then quote the Washington Times):
Her remarks signal the potential for a major turn in the climate change debate in Congress. She has been a leading opponent of the type of legislation that has been moving forward so far…..
<snip>
Yesterday, I pointed out that Nate Silver’s “Probability of Yes” vote for Murkowski is 2.37%, putting her in the “Republican Hail Mary’s & No-Shots,” writing:

But based on this op-ed, and her earlier statements, I’m going to put her at 50%. Assuming Graham and Kerry come up with a compromise that, say, McCain can support, how exactly will Murkowski oppose it? On grounds that it was not a “good faith” effort to address climate change?

http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/49697

[Mass]

1. There is NO Kerry-Graham plan. There is a Kerry-Boxer plan.

Graham has not even said he was on board and may not be without serious modification. I read this article yesterday and it drew me crazy that people cannot have a little more attention span.

I guess this is a case where a little bit will be better than nothing, but clearly, Murkowski coming on board is linked to the fact that there will be drilling in the bill, as there will be way too many subventions for nuclear. Somebody tells me why this is a good thing. (and yes, I understand why they need to do that).

NOTE: It was clear that Murkowski would be one of the easy ones to get. Not sure why Silver thought otherwise. May be he should look at a map and see where Alaska is. Stevens was moving toward this as well because the icecap is melting in Alaska.

[karynnj]

2. I know the bill is Kerry/Boxer - it was the title of the article

I think that is why the author used the word "plan" rather than bill. Murkowski did not say she was on board for the Kerry/Boxer bill.

I think that the way in which these things could be good is if they allow the passage of a bill with a solid cap and trade provision. The concessions for nuclear here are far less than those in Lieberman/Warner or what McCain wants. The main concession was to streamline the approval process. This does not mean that rules would be less stringent. It also funds research - just as it does for coal. If research finds cost effective solutions to the problems of either, though very unlikely, it would be a game changer.

However, it is more likely that they will not find a clean coal solution - and cap and trade would raise the price of coal relative to other energy sources which will make it less economic. With nuclear, a bigger deterrent is the high cost and the length of time it takes before energy is produced. Streamlining the permits would shorten the time but they would still be long. It will still be tough to get anyone to invest in a nuclear power plant that, if like current plants, will produce energy that costs more than alternatives. There will be parallel research that could make solar, wind, etc more efficient and even cheaper. So, it both these cases, unless research finds a breakthrough solution, the free market itself will not favor either of these technologies.