Veep Candidates on Cap-and-Trade
Boy, how the times have changed. Nearly nine years ago, the U.S. Senate unanimously approved the Byrd-Hagel Resolution by a vote of 95-0, rejecting the Kyoto Protocol because it did not include mandates and timetables for developing nations like China and India. The agreement, the resolution declared, "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States." Fast forward nine years. Today, a large number of Democrats and a handful of Republicans are determined to impose stringent mandates on America's carbon emissions even as China and India continue to emit to their heart's content.
Where do the most-talked about VP candidates stand on the cap-and-trade legislation? Let's find out:
Charlie Crist: Charlie Crist has clearly drunk from the cap-and-trade Kool-Aid. Last summer, Gov. Crist announced his statewide cap-and-trade program with much fanfare at a three-day climate change summit in Miami. This year, Crist has pushed for and signed legislation a plan to cap carbon emissions in his own state. The 200-page legislation authorizes the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to initiate a cap-and-trade system to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Gov. Crist also signed an agreement with the British government to join forces in creating a global cap-and-trade market for greenhouse gas emissions. Florida businesses can rest assured-Charlie Crist insists the cap-and-trade plan won't hurt the state's economy. Yeah right
Tim Pawlenty: The Minnesota Governor has already passed energy mandates last year, requiring utilities to produce 25 percent of their electricity from renewable source by 2025 and set targets for the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050. Now, Pawlenty is seeking to take his environmental progress regional. In January of this year, Pawlenty met with other Midwest governors, signing the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Accord to establish a cap-and-trade market in the Midwest. "Our regional agreement is an important milestone toward achieving a cleaner, more secure energy future," Governor Pawlenty said. "The Midwest is well-positioned to help lead the energy revolution that our nation needs to stay competitive and strong. Working together, states can build a de facto national energy policy that will create good jobs and build a cleaner and safer world."
Bobby Jindal: Governor Jindal supported some kind of government mandate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but to what extent remains unclear. In June 2007, he voted in support of (voted against removing) a section in the 2008 Interior-Environment Appropriations Bill that expressed "the sense of the Congress that there should be enacted a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such emissions at a rate and in a manner that: (1) will not significantly harm the United States economy; and (2) will encourage comparable action by other nations that are major trading partners and key contributors to global emissions."
Now, this language is extremely weak, and Lieberman-Warner does not meet either of the two aforementioned conditions. That said, it is notable that Jindal was 1 of 44 Republicans voting to keep this language in the bill.
Mitt Romney: Mitt Romney's position on cap-and-trade is the hardest to pin down. Campaigning in New Hampshire last year, Governor Romney was captured on video saying about cap-and-trade: "I support it on a global basis as one of the possible solutions. I do not support it for the USA alone. I want to do it with other nations involved . . ." The governor could also be found during the campaign attacking the McCain's sponsorship of cap-and-trade legislation, saying it would have increased energy costs for the average Florida family of four by $1,000 and would "kill jobs"
The history though, is a little bit murkier. In July of 2003, Romney wrote a letter to then-New York Governor George Pataki expressing interest in a "flexible market-based regional cap and trade system" for Northeast states. He met with nine other Northeast governors to discuss plans to create a region-wide cap-and-trade system. The resulting pact, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 10 percent by 2020, and initially received Romney's enthusiasm. "This is a great thing for the Commonwealth, he said in November, 2005. "We can effectively create incentives to help stimulate a sector of the economy and at the same time not kill jobs." He went on to say, "I'm convinced it's good for business." But only a month later, Romney pulled out of discussions when other governors would not agree to his proposal to cap the price power plants would have to pay for the right to emit carbon dioxide.
Jim DeMint: The South Carolina Senator is unambiguously opposed to the Lieberman-Warner bill. In a June 2nd press release, Sen. DeMint declared: "This bill would be an economic disaster for our state and our nation, while offering no certain environmental gains. Our nation already faces major economic hurdles with record-high energy prices. The last thing Americans need right now is for Congress to force through a massive bill that destroys jobs and hikes gasoline prices by nearly five dollars a gallon. If you're already frustrated by the cost of gasoline and natural gas, this next 'sock in the gut' from Congress will really take your breath away."
Mike Huckabee: Governor Huckabee has long taken a religious approach to the environment, and cap-and-trade is no exception. In a 2007 Bloomberg article, Mike Huckabee said he supports a cap-and-trade system because "It goes to the moral issues. "We have a responsibility to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, to conserve energy, to find alternative forms of energy that are renewable and sustainable and environmentally friendly.
Joe Lieberman: Lieberman-Warner, enough said.
Kay Bailey Hutchinson: Senator Hutchinson voted against the Lieberman-Warner bill in the Senate.
Governors Mark Sanford and Sarah Palin and Rob Portman do not have a public position on the legislation.
