As the Aspen Times reports:
The energy-climate bill passed last week in the House will face an even tougher battle in the Senate, U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet predicted Wednesday during a stop at the Aspen campus of Colorado Mountain College.
The Colorado Democrat, in town to attend the Aspen Ideas Festival, met with CMC administrators and other local representatives for a briefing on the college’s new Green Building Academy initiative, aimed at certifying building professionals in energy efficiency and green building. The goal is to help residents meet the changing needs in the workplace in the midst of state and national efforts to stimulate the economy through the creation of “green jobs.”
…The climate bill that narrowly passed in the House last week, however, “needs a lot of work,” Bennet said. The legislation calls for the nation’s first limits on pollution linked to global warming and aims to usher in a new era of cleaner, but more costly energy while reducing the country’s reliance on foreign oil, but Bennet said the bill is too weighted toward investment in clean coal and he called for better balance between coal and natural gas.
The legislation, he said, also lacks sufficient incentives for renewable energy. Several attendees at Wednesday’s gathering also called for incentives to make the green push viable…
“I do think it will increase energy bills, but not as much as what they’re saying,” Bennet said. “We’ve got to be able to demonstrate that – to show people the math.”
If the resulting costs to the consumer are onerous, the legislation won’t pass in the Senate, he predicted.
Bennet’s right about that, but he also correctly points out that the cost estimate to consumers in this bill ranges from relatively modest increases as figured by most nonpartisan sources and the CBO, to totally ridiculous scare-tactic warnings of thousands of dollars pushed by the energy companies and some Republicans. Our read of Bennet’s comments, while still not as unequivocal as either supporters or detractors would prefer, suggests that he hears what the bill’s opponents are saying but is not buying into it. Which is more than could be said for John Salazar a few days ago, and should leave the bill’s supports feeling a little better as it moves to the Senate.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: NotHopeful
IN: Christmas 2024 Open Thread
BY: DavidThi808
IN: Christmas 2024 Open Thread
BY: Gilpin Guy
IN: Colorado Pols is 20 Years Old!!!
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: It’s Long Past Time to Ban Body Armor
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: joe_burly
IN: Colorado Pols is 20 Years Old!!!
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Colorado Pols is 20 Years Old!!!
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: davebarnes
IN: Holy Crap Boebert Bestie Matt Gaetz’s Ethics Report Is Bad
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Bennet sounds like he supports the climate change bill, but wants to effect some serious improvement in it. What he’s talking about are things that would make it better.
This is all about federal control over the energy industry, but the environmentalism claim is nice. Believable even.
…you might want to seek professional help.
So we’ll have to have more time to evaluate him/her/it beyond the fact that he/she/it is clearly an energy industry shill.
The clarity of your convictions is fantastic.
I don’t like polluting energy producers any more than I like an overzealous federal government bent on increasing its grip on power. Using the evils of one to justify the evils of the other is false logic.
based on evidence
just call everyone
“evil.”
Burma Shave
Show me a rational argument on this thread.
There’s a generalized “make things better” claim, there are a couple of insults based on my post, and there’s your eleven word post distorting my argument that the federal government is bent on increasing its grip on… oh forget about. I smell deaf ears.
There’s also a lot of name calling, snark, strawman arguments, and other assorted garbage. But there is quite a bit of thoughful analysis and discussion – that’s what keeps most of us here.
But one of the unofficial rules here is if you are new we expect you to post thoughtful analysis and then we will respond. But we don’t respond to stupid statements with analysis because there are way too many trolls that show up where logic does no good.
In other words – as the newcomer – you first.
you would have noticed that my post above contained fourteen words.
How did my post distort your “argument?”
Here is your “argument:”
Welcome to Colorado Pols.