We don’t usually take on issues related to cap-and-trade on this blog; that space appears to be pretty well occupied at the moment. But a story posted today out of South Carolina referencing U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham’s recent announcement of support for that initiative caught our eye – since he seems to be drawing a connection to it and continued efforts to promote responsible energy exploration offshore.

Here’s how E&E News (subs. req’d) characterized his position on that today:

Graham said he is working with Kerry to expand offshore drilling and increase nuclear power to limit the nation’s reliance on foreign oil. He said making compromises on capping greenhouse gases was a worthwhile trade-off to get the bill through the Senate.

Seems reasonable enough, right? Reach across the aisle and be willing to give a little to get a little so that decades-long federal bans preventing Americans from accessing their own energy are finally lifted. So what if you have to hold your nose and support an economy-wide cap on energy use – just so long as we can finally claim victory on an issue that has eluded the American public for the better part of 30 years. Right?

There’s only one problem with that strain of analysis: The bans are gone. The moratoria have been lifted. The American people saw to that themselves, rising up last summer to demand of their Congress an end to the blockade of American energy offshore.

So: Not to put too fine a point on this, but if Sen. Graham is as interested in offshore energy exploration as he’s letting on, shouldn’t someone pull him aside and explain that he doesn’t need to support cap-and-trade to get us further along offshore? Explain that we don’t actually need new legislation. Explain that his efforts would be much better directed by sending Interior secretary Ken Salazar a letter? Explain that if Interior were doing its job, we could be out there today trying to do what we can to deliver a better energy future for tomorrow?

UPDATE: Well, at least the senator’s messaging on all this seems to be a lot better off than his policy justification. Responding to a recent round of radio ads posted by the American Energy Alliance in his state taking him to the mat over his cap-and-trade flip, it looks as if Sen. Graham’s people are trying to accentuate the positive:

[Sen. Graham’s] office released a statement Thursday that focused on the Senator’s support for nuclear energy and offshore drilling but made no mention of cap-and-trade.

“Energy independence will be a 21st Century job creator in South Carolina,” Graham spokesman Kevin Bishop said. “Few states would benefit more from energy independence than South Carolina.”

He’s right – South Carolina is uniquely positioned to do for the East Coast what Alaska has been doing for the West Coast for 35 years: Fuel, power and light its economy. How any of that relates to cap-and-trade, though, is anyone’s guess.

UPDATE II: Looks like American Energy Alliance is upping the ante a bit on Sen. Graham, releasing a Halloween-themed television ad on top of the radio spots to run statewide in South Carolina.