U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 22, 2010 11:35 PM UTC

Bennet on Cap & Trade: Flip Flop or Geographically determined responses? DC or Grand Junction?

  • 8 Comments
  • by: H-man

National Review is up with a good story this afternoon. http://www.nationalreview.com/… Michael Bennet has indicated his support for cap and trade legislation numerous times back in DC. The bill, which is referred to as Cap and Trade was passed by the House, HR 2454, would reduce carbon emissions by requiring polluters to trade pollution allowances and which would require providers of electricity to produce 20% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

Bennet joined with his fellow Dem freshmen Senators in July calling on Harry Reid to get the ball rolling:


Freshmen Senate Democrats are pushing legislation that prices industrial greenhouse gas emissions as part of a broader package of energy and climate initiatives.

All 12 in the current freshmen Democratic class – in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) Friday – say a price on carbon emissions is needed in order to provide market certainty and keep pace with major developing countries like China and India.

Their call for a “polluter pays” approach to climate change echoes that of Democratic leaders looking to strike a deal on a first-time carbon-pricing program focusing on electric utilities.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wi…

In July 2010 the failure for the Senate to pass such legislation caused the DC native to note as follows:

Michael Bennet, U.S. Senator for Colorado, released the following statement regarding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s decision to bring a scaled-back energy bill to the Senate floor next week:

“I can’t help but be underwhelmed by Washington today,” said Bennet.  “The country needs us to move forward on addressing climate change and creating a clean energy economy.  Yet partisanship and gridlock have struck again.  We need a comprehensive energy bill that puts a price on carbon pollution and incentivizes the investments in clean energy that will help create jobs and lessen our dependence on overseas oil.  A good bill will also follow Colorado’s lead in establishing an aggressive renewable electricity standard.

“We simply can’t afford to let the opportunity to create new clean energy jobs and break our reliance on foreign fossil fuels slip away.  And while Washington can’t seem to get its act together, I’m going to keep up the fight to pass a comprehensive energy and climate bill that moves Colorado and the country forward.” [emphasis added]

So now Senator Bennet is back in Colorado, where Cap and Trade in unpopular, and he is in Grand Juction, where it is particularly unpopular, for a debate, guess what? Bennet does not support cap and trade and its an unproductive conversation to have, at least when he is in Grand Junction.

Here’s the video of Bennet clearing things up. The relevant statement is at 32:40.



Tweet
Share

Comments

8 thoughts on “Bennet on Cap & Trade: Flip Flop or Geographically determined responses? DC or Grand Junction?”

  1. and I was also at a gathering with Sen. Bennet the afternoon before the Club 20 debate.

    In the afternoon he gave a very clear and philosophically sound explanation of his position. Briefly, that the important objective is a sound energy policy that provides for energy security. He explained that we should evaluate all the options that move us in this direction. If cap and trade does this (and in particular, does it better than other options) then we should pursue it. If it doesn’t, then let’s implement other options.

    He explained it well. I apologize for my incoherence, but I’m in a hurry to make an appt.

    On the other hand, I was quite disappointed that he wasn’t so lucid in his response at Club 20.

    So, is it a flip flop, or was he supporting a bill that was in front of him at the time, even if it wasn’t the best of all possible approaches from his perspective.

    Maybe you can ask him, H-man?

    1. I saw his support in DC for cap and trade as inconsistent with what I understood him to say in the debate.  If there is a thread of consistency, I just did not get it.

  2. In the video, Bennet says he didn’t support the cap and trade bill “passed in the House. I don’t have the particulars of that at my fingertips, but if Reid brought out a watered-down bill for the Senate to consider: the difference between the House bill and Reid’s proposal?

    Throughout, both in DC and GJ, Bennet argued for a much more comprehensive Energy policy, than merely carbon pricing.

    I agree, Bennet needs to clarify his GJ statement, and, if he is unable to do so reasonably, I’ll accept it as a flip-flop.

    And, considering the alternative, vote for him anyway.

  3. Having been at the debate, I remember Bennet’s answer on this being much more cogent. Buck basically took the opportunity to rant about how we weren’t using enough coal, as I recall…

    But I don’t see supporting cap and trade and not supporting the Waxman bill as a flip flop. Waxman was only cap and trade in the broadest definition of the term… it was a very very poorly written bill, as many acknowledged. And there were a lot of reasons to oppose it. I wasn’t excited about it, and I’m still not sure that it would have represented an improvement.

    So basically, there’s a big difference between supporting Cap and Trade and the House Climate bill. Big big difference. This is not a flip flop.

    Nice try to spread the gotcha around. What did Buck backtrack on today? His support for privatizing the VA?

  4. Cap n’ Trade was her and Grandpa McCain’s Energy plank when they were running for the White House. They completely endorsed it and sang its  praises over and over.

    Until the nation rejected them.

    Then it became “Cap n’ Tax”. Typical Republican Conservative flip flopping shit.

    Buck is just following the conservative formula word for word.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

86 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!