In March, Senator Lindsey Graham (R, S.C.) stood on the floor of the U.S. Senate and gave the most sensible statement about why climate change legislation should be supported. “The idea that what we put into the environment can affect the environment – I’m not a scientist, but that’s common sense to me.”

Senator Graham has never been shy about cutting to the chase. He was just as straightforward when he opposed an earlier bill that had been introduced to the Senate opposing CO₂ emissions. The question of “how” the gas should be regulated will undoubtedly be heavily debated on the Senate floor, just as it’s debated in living rooms and boardrooms. Graham’s statement starts the debate where it belongs – on the “how.” He steps over a subject that has, for much too long, bogged down the practical question of how we regulate greenhouse gases, which mechanisms will work, how hard to push the legislation.

It makes sense to me that if you start a fire in your living room, the house will fill with smoke and you’ll cough. I’m not a scientist either, but it’s hard for me to see any sense in opposing Senator Graham’s logic. We can debate legislation but why argue with the need to put some controls on what we put into the environment? Senator Graham had it right when he cut to the chase on the Senate floor, putting common sense into the debate about climate change. “The worst thing that could happen with this climate change debate,” he said, “is you cleaned up the planet and you passed on a better environment to your grandchildren.”