Yes We Can.doc

Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation)By JOHN KERRY and LINDSEY GRAHAM (2009、10)John Kerry is a Democratic senator from Massachusetts. Lindsey Graham is a Republican senator from South Carolina.CONVENTIONAL wisdom suggests that the prospect 前景of Congress passing a comprehensive 全面的climate change bill soon is rapidly approaching zero. The divisions 分歧in our country on how to deal with climate change are deep. Many Democrats insist on tough new standards for curtailing缩减 the carbon emissions that cause global warming. Many Republicans remain concerned about the cost to Americans relative to the environmental benefit and are adamant dmnt坚硬的 about breaking our addiction to foreign sources of oil. However, we refuse to accept the argument that the United States cannot lead the world in addressing global climate change. 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使复兴 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 坚持 拥护 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. Its true that we come from different parts of the country and represent different constituencies knstitjunsi选区 and that we supported different presidential candidates in 2008. We even have different accents. But we speak with one voice in saying that the best way to make America stronger is to work together to address an urgent crisis facing the world. This process requires honest give-and-take妥协(平等交换, 协凋) and genuine bipartisanship .baip:tizn两党合作. 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利益 in this legislation. Were looking for a new beginning, informed by the work of our colleagues and legislation that is already before Congress. First, we agree that climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security. That is why we are advocating aggressive reductions in our emissions of the carbon gases that cause climate change. We will minimize the impact on major emitters发射体through a market-based system that will provide both flexibility and time for big polluters to come into compliance without hindering global competitiveness or driving more jobs overseas.Second, while we invest in renewable energy sources可再生能源 like wind and solar, we must also take advantage of nuclear power, our single largest contributor of emissions-free power零排放电力. Nuclear power needs to be a core component of electricity generation if we are to meet our emission reduction targets. We need to jettison detisn投弃cumbersomekmbsm笨重的讨厌的 regulations that have stalled使停止the construction of nuclear plants in favor of a streamlined最新型的, 改进的permit system that maintains vigorous safeguards while allowing utilities to secure financing for more plants. We must also do more to encourage serious investment in research and development to find solutions to our nuclear waste problem. Third, climate change legislation is an opportunity to get serious about breaking our dependence on foreign oil. For too long, we have ignored potential energy sources off our coasts and underground. Even as we increase renewable electricity generation, we must recognize that for the foreseeable future we will continue to burn fossil fuels. fsl .fjul矿物燃料 To meet our environmental goals, we must do this as cleanly as possible. The United States should aim to become the Saudi Arabia of clean coal. For this reason, we need to provide new financial incentives for companies that develop carbon capture and sequestration .si:kwestrein 扣押查封technology. 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, we cannot sacrifice another job to competitors overseas. China and India are among the many countries investing heavily in clean-energy technologies that will produce millions of jobs. There is no reason we should surrender our marketplace to countries that do not accept environmental standards. For this reason, we should consider a border tax on items produced in countries that avoid these standards. This is consistent with our obligations under the World Trade Organization and creates strong incentives for other countries to adopt tough environmental protections. Finally, we will develop a mechanism to protect businesses and ultimately consumers from increases in energy prices. The central element is the establishment of a floor and a ceiling for the cost of emission allowances. This will also safeguard important industries while they make the investments necessary to join the clean-energy era. We recognize there will be short-term transition costs associated with any climate change legislation, costs that can be eased. But we also believe strongly that the long-term gain will be enormous. Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk.Failure to act comes with another cost. If Congress does not pass legislation dealing with climate change, the administration will use the Environmental Protection Agency to impose new regulations. Imposed regulations are likely to be tougher and they certainly will not include the job protections and investment incentives we are proposing. The message to those who have stalled for years is clear: killing a Senate bill is not success; indeed, given the threat of agency regulation, those who have been content to make the legislative process grind to a halt would later come running to Congress in a panic to secure the kinds of incentives and investments we can pass today. Industry needs the certainty that comes with Congressional action.We are confident that a legitimate bipartisan effort can put America back in the lead again and can empower our negotiators to sit down at the table in Copenhagen in December and insist that the rest of the world join us in producing a new international agreement on global warming. That way, we will pass on to future generations a strong economy, a clean environment and an energy-independent nation. 是的，我们可以（通过气候变化立法）约翰克里（John Kerry）和格雷厄姆（2009,10）来自马萨诸塞州的民主党参议员约翰克里是。格雷厄姆是来自南卡罗来纳州的共和党参议员。传统智慧认为，国会很快通过一项全面的气候变化法案的前景接近零。在我国如何应对气候变化的分歧是严重的。许多民主党人坚持强硬的缩减导致全球变暖的碳排放量的新标准。许多共和党人继续关注相对于环境效益给美国人带来的成本，他们坚持打破我们对外国石油来源的依赖。不过，我们拒绝接受美国在应对全球气候变化不能走在世界前列的论点。我们也相信，我们已经找到了一个能在国会上通过气候法案的框架和能使我们的经济复兴、保护现有的和创造新的就业机会、维护国家安全和减少污染的清洁能源未来的蓝图。我们的合作伙伴，在气候变化的解决方案和能源独立的中心原则上达成了共识。那就是从现在开始而不是几个月尝试在参议院获得60票。我们来自不同的国家，代表不同的选区，在2008年我们支持不同的总统候选人。我们甚至有不同的口音。但我们在一个问题上是一致的：使美国更强大的最好的办法是携手应对世界所面临的一个紧迫的危机。这个过程需要诚实妥协和真正的两党合作。两党合作。本着这种精神，我们走到了一起以提出解决在这个法案中民主党、共和党和其他选区之间的合法利益的建议。我们正在寻找一个在国会之前已经被我们的同事和立法的工作所了解的新的开始。首先，我们认为气候变化是真实的并且威胁着我们的经济和国家安全。这就是为什么我们要倡导大幅度减少导致气候变化的二氧化碳气体的排放量。我们会通过一市场为基础的体系来尽量减少主要发射体的影响，这个系统将给污染大户遵守不妨碍全球竞争力和推动海外就业的规定提供灵活性和时间。第二，我们投资在风能和太阳能等可再生能源，我们还必须充分利用作为零排放电力的最大贡献者的核电。如果我们要达到我们的减排目标就需要将核能作为发电的核心组成部分。我们需要抛弃使核电厂建设停止的繁琐的法规，核电厂的建设有利于最新型的许可证制度，它主张在用实用工具来为电厂融资时要有有力的安全措施。我们还必须做更多的鼓励严肃的投资在研究和开发,以找到核废料问题的解决方案。三，气候变化立法是一个认真对待打破我们对外国石油的严重依赖的机会。长久以来，我们已经忽略了在海岸和地下的潜在的能源。即使我们增加可再生能源发电，我们必须认识到，在可预见的未来，我们将继续燃烧化石燃料。为满足我们的环境目标，我们必须尽可能干净地做到这一点。美国的目标是成为清洁煤的沙特