HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Bob Kerrey (D-NE) changes...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 07:40 AM

Bob Kerrey (D-NE) changes stance on cap and trade

Source: Omaha World Herald


By Robynn Tysver

Democrat Bob Kerrey, who once argued that lawmakers had a “moral” duty to support an anti-pollution proposal known as cap and trade, says he's had a change of heart.

Kerrey says he came to realize over the past several months — after talking with Nebraska businesses and reading about Europe's troubled cap-and-trade program — that the controversial plan to limit carbon emissions was “not the answer.”

But, he says, he still believes climate change is real. And, unlike Republican Deb Fischer, he's convinced that it's man-made and that something needs to be done.

“I don't have the answer,” Kerrey said Friday. “(But) I've found over the course of my life, some of my most productive work begins right after I discover something I believed was wrong.”

FULL story at link.



Read more: http://www.omaha.com/article/20121013/NEWS/710139909/1685#bob-kerrey-changes-stance-on-cap-and-trade

8 replies, 2333 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bob Kerrey (D-NE) changes stance on cap and trade (Original post)
Omaha Steve Oct 2012 OP
Celebration Oct 2012 #1
Brewinblue Oct 2012 #2
BlueToTheBone Oct 2012 #3
BanzaiBonnie Oct 2012 #4
modrepub Oct 2012 #6
bananas Oct 2012 #7
TheFarseer Oct 2012 #5
on point Oct 2012 #8

Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 07:55 AM

1. good for him

I think it is important to question your positions.

I, too, know that man made climate change is real, but cap and trade seems like a ridiculous way to tackle the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 08:09 AM

2. Yeah

I never understood the good of selling unused pollution. It's like shifting shit from your left hand to your right and saying you're rid of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brewinblue (Reply #2)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 09:04 AM

3. In the case of the Redwood Forest

they would not be cut to the ground to offset pollution elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brewinblue (Reply #2)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 10:02 AM

4. Wow! That's the best explanation of this idiotic idea I've ever seen

Thanks Brewinblue. If I'd coffee in my mouth, it would have been all over my screen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brewinblue (Reply #2)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 10:10 AM

6. It's similar to the clean air act trading programs

they allow industry to put controls on where they are most cost effective. Unfortunately the whole program favors those already in the market by granting quotas based on current operations. Anyone who wants to get in has to buy them from established industry, a marked disadvantage if you have to go begging for credits from one of your competitors.

I'd rather see efficiency standards put in place. Utilities in the east operate woefully inefficient boilers mainly because they are exempt form most pollution controls (grandfathered) and they're basically paid for. Efficiency standards like what we impose on cars would at least help reduce or maintain our carbon emissions and actually provide jobs because we'd be building more efficient plants to replace ones that are in some cased 50+ years old.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brewinblue (Reply #2)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 01:52 PM

7. You're forgetting the "CAP" part

Total emissions are capped, and the cap gets smaller each year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 10:09 AM

5. Glad he did

but I don't think it will help much. We're going to be stuck with that stupid bitch Deb Fisher as our Senator - for years and years

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 03:02 PM

8. Regulation vs Market based solution

CHICKEN.
This was always a republican proposal because they did not want regulation and felt that a 'market based' solution would yield better innovation in technology and business innovation in process to avoid the pollution.

But yes, it would 'cost', and yes it would require changes in behavior. And this is really why they are against it.

There is no time to waste. Change must happen and must happen now. Both regulation and a market based approach will involve cost and change in behavior. There are other approaches, such as the Clinton BTU tax, or more directly a carbon tax.

But the idea that we can't do this now, because it will cost or change our behavior misses the point. We must change our behavior and it will always cost us.

The market fails right now because it does not capture the externalities and long term, GIGANTIC COSTS, to civilization and the planet.

So if not Cap and trade then regulation. But stand for something now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread