Graham co-authored an opinion piece in The New York Times Sunday with Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, of the majority Democrat party, under the headline “Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation)”. Kerry, along with California Senator Barbara Boxer, introduced a Senate bill last month to match the one passed by the US House in June.

America’s political divisions over climate change remain deep, Kerry and Graham write.

“However, we refuse to accept the argument that the United States cannot lead the world in addressing global climate change,” they write. “We are also convinced that we have found both a framework for climate legislation to pass Congress and the blueprint for a clean-energy future that will revitalize our economy, protect current jobs and create new ones, safeguard our national security and reduce pollution.

“Our partnership represents a fresh attempt to find consensus that adheres to our core principles and leads to both a climate change solution and energy independence. It begins now, not months from now — with a road to 60 votes in the Senate.”

The 60-vote total is important. That’s how many are needed to break a filibuster, a procedural tactic lawmakers can use to stall voting on bills they oppose.

Democrats, who hold a majority in the Senate, nevertheless need Republican support to pass a climate change bill. Members of their own party representing coal-dependent states in the Midwest have balked at legislation they view as detrimental to their constituents.

Increasing support for nuclear and domestic oil and gas exploration are seen as key concessions to gain Republican support. These also risk alienating liberal Democrats who hew closer to environmentalists.

Some political observers see Graham’s support for climate change legislation as game-changer that could bring perhaps four Republican senators into the fold.

"The odds of a Senate climate bill just jumped through the roof,” writes Joe Romm, a widely followed commentator at www.climateprogress.org.

But a Senate bill still appears unlikely to be passed before the world meets in Copenhagen this December to negotiate a new global warming treaty. The prospect of the US going to the climate talks with tangible progress and perhaps even an agreement in hand would be welcome.

Graham indicates that he does not support the current Kerry-Boxer bill as written. The opinion article suggests the contours of a bill that could gain bipartisan support in the Senate.

“[W]e have come together to put forward proposals that address legitimate concerns among Democrats and Republicans and the other constituencies with stakes in this legislation,” Kerry and Graham write. “We’re looking for a new beginning, informed by the work of our colleagues and legislation that is already before Congress.”

Their specific proposals include:

• “[A]ggressive reductions” in carbon dioxide emissions through a cap-and-trade system, with a price floor and ceiling for emissions allowances.
• A prominent role for nuclear power, which “needs to be a core component of electricity generation if we are to meet our emission reduction targets”. Specifically, the senators call for “a streamlined permit system” for new nuclear plants, and research to deal with “our nuclear waste problem”.
• Greater attention to fossil fuels “off our coasts and underground”. But an expansion of domestic fossil fuel production must be matched with development of carbon capture and sequestration technology, which would receive more funding.
• “[A] border tax on items produced in countries that avoid [environmental] standards. This is consistent with our obligations under the World Trade Organization and creates strong incentives for other countries to adopt tough environmental protections.”

The entire Kerry-Graham op-ed can be found here.