Senators Lindsey Graham and John Kerry are aware that they’re pretty different when it comes to politics. The former is a Republican from South Carolina, the latter a Democrat from Massachusetts. So while they don’t often see eye to eye on issues presented to them in Congress, Senators Graham and Kerry took to the op/ed page of the New York Times on Saturday to announce that they stand together on climate change legislation. Not only that, but they hope to revive the debate by offering a framework, agreeable to both sides of the aisle, from which to create a plan.

This process requires honest give-and-take and genuine bipartisanship. In that spirit, we have come together to put forward proposals that address legitimate concerns among Democrats and Republicans and the other constituencies with stakes in this legislation. We’re looking for a new beginning, informed by the work of our colleagues and legislation that is already before Congress.

Their plan is multi-faceted. First is a market-based approach to addressing the crisis. This involves “both flexibility and time for big polluters to come into compliance without hindering global competitiveness or driving more jobs overseas.” Second comes nuclear power in addition to other forms of alternative energy. This would involve cutting a lot of the red tape that has hindered the process of nuclear plants coming online.

Next, stopping the dependence on foreign oil. This means continuing to burn fossil fuels, but providing financial incentives to capture and sequester the emissions. As well,

In addition, we are committed to seeking compromise on additional onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration — work that was started by a bipartisan group in the Senate last Congress. Any exploration must be conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner and protect the rights and interests of our coastal states.

Fourth, not losing jobs overseas. Fair enough. Finally, the Senators hope to “develop a mechanism to protect businesses—and ultimately consumers—from increases in energy prices.” They admit that in the short-term, there will be costs associated with getting greener. But hopefully, they say, these prices can be mitigated.

Phew. That was a lot of stuff. So, what do you think? It seems like this is quite geared towards industry and business, which may very well be a political move, given that, you know, they have the money and basically have to sign off on these things. I’ve said over and over again I don’t know enough about nuclear power to have a good opinion on the matter, but the rest of the proposals look to be covering the best interests of business while still attempting some sort of curbing of emissions.

Does this plan go far enough? What would you do differently, remembering that this plan has to pass both chambers of Congress, and the President’s desk?

photo credit: cliff1066’s flickr photostream/Creative Commons