The News Tracker

Unlike most other issues (such as health care), energy legislation is a true state commerce issue. The idea that Obama could pass comprehensive energy legislation was a media fantasy from the beginning. Representatives from states that rely on fossil fuels for employment of their populations cannot get on board for that kind of legislation no matter what their party. For once, Congress is fulfilling their role as representatives and doing the right thing by avoiding such legislation. Furthermore, until green energy comes with a real jobs agenda instead of fantasy jobs (and no guarantees about which states would get those jobs) local legislators are doing what is right and proper to resist federal attempts to put in place genuine (as opposed to rhetorical) job-killing policies. Democrats in West Virginia for instance, who support a lot of the President’s agenda, cannot get elected or keep their jobs if they support things like cap and trade. Generic environmental legislation that does not guarantee a real solution to climate change and more jobs (as well as ensuring that the U.S. does not end up at a competitive disadvantage with the countries that refuse such legislation such as China, India and Russia) and that does not raise utility prices on a beleagured populace is an unrealistic goal.

does not end up at a competitive disadvantage with the countries that refuse such legislation such as China, India and Russia) and that does not raise utility prices on a beleagured populace is an unrealistic goal. For once, Congress is fulfilling their role as representatives and doing the right thing by avoiding such legislation. Unlike most other issues (such as health care), energy legislation is a true state commerce issue. Furthermore, until green energy comes with a real jobs agenda instead of fantasy jobs (and no guarantees about which states would get those jobs) local legislators are doing what is right and proper to resist federal attempts to put in place genuine (as opposed to rhetorical) job-killing policies. Generic environmental legislation that does not guarantee a real solution to climate change and more jobs (as well as ensuring that the U.S. Representatives from states that rely on fossil fuels for employment of their populations cannot get on board for that kind of legislation no matter what their party. Democrats in West Virginia for instance, who support a lot of the President’s agenda, cannot get elected or keep their jobs if they support things like cap and trade. The idea that Obama could pass comprehensive energy legislation was a media fantasy from the beginning.

This is the whole difference with Democrats and Republicans. Democrats think they know the answer and we should all have to follow it or be penalized. But we are opposed to spending our money only to penalize us with higher rates and limited choices in what we use for power or driving or how we live. This is another area where as the article says, people are not opposed to solar or wind or battery cars. If not, they keep your hands off our lives. Republicans think that the economy will decide by our purchases of a product. If solar is a good choice, if electric cars are a great deal, then people will buy them or use them. Only the latter can possibly make for a successful and satisfying policy.

32 climate regulations until California unemployment drops below 5.5%. Ten Northeastern states are operating a carbon cap-and-trade regulatory system for electric utilities. Some 30 states have individually, or regionally, implementing alternative energy, conservation and other greenhouse gas reduction regulations with influence from green lobbyists. In November, a counter ballot initiative (Prop. Also promoted are state and regional regulations to reduce carbon emissions. Some of the extracongressional schemes include EPA setting stricter carbon standards for gasoline, rolling back federal subsidies for oil and gas development, slashing tax breaks and royalty waivers for energy industries. While Midwest and Western states struggle with the costs versus benefits of pricing carbon. 23) would allow voters to suspend costly A.B. 32. California adopted climate control legislation via a state ballot initiative in 2006, A.B.

Climate control costs are known. Climate science remains unsettled. The unpredictable interactions and ultimate atmospheric fates of clouds and aerosols stand in the way of reliable global warming cause-and-effect findings. The benefits are unknown. Truth is, unless and until a cost/benefit analysis can be agreed upon, and world oil prices stay above $80 per barrel, no responsible nation (or state) should self-inflict the higher energy prices that necessarily attach to climate regulations — especially during economic recession.

Related Stories