<\/p>\n
There seems to be something about climate policy that encourages senators to take positions that are logically impossible<\/a>. <\/p>\n I am very concerned about the impact on Nebraska if EPA<\/p>\n moves to regulate carbon emissions. Many Nebraska agricultural,<\/p>\n industrial, and energy-related businesses and organizations have warned<\/p>\n about the costs they would have to shoulder from EPA regulations. Because<\/p>\n EPA regulations would be a government-directed command-and-control<\/p>\n regime, they would raise the price of energy in Nebraska, add greatly<\/p>\n to administrative costs, and create new layers of bureaucracy<\/strong>. The burden would fall squarely on Nebraska families, farmers, and businesses.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The EPA’s rules will function as a soft cap on large emitters of <\/p>\n The ability of trading markets to reduce compliance costs for <\/p>\n Nelson said he has not had detailed conversations yet with Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman. But he said he is open to negotiations on setting a limit on greenhouse gas emissions. “I want to see what the legislation does,” he said. “I said I can support cap. I have trouble with cap-and-trade, the trade part of it<\/strong>. So if it’s cap-and-trade, watered down, and it’s only the trade watered down, that won’t satisfy me.”<\/p>\n <\/p>\n A cap without “trade” is by definition a <\/p>\n Nelson may be trying to pander to polls, which show that the phrase “cap-and-trade” is unpopular<\/a> by comparison to Americans’ desire for the government to regulate Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n Digging into Obama’s 2011 budget on energy and the environment<\/a><\/p>\n Cap-and-trade death knell, revisited and revised<\/a><\/p>\n
In the latest instance, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) has now managed to
simultaneously oppose and support a carbon command-and-control regime.
Nelson is one of three Democrats<\/a> to co-sponsor Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Ark.) resolution overturning the EPA’s greenhouse gas endangerment finding, supposedly because “EPA regulations<\/a> would be a government-directed command-and-control regime:”<\/p>\n
global warming pollution, most of whom are already covered by Clean Air
Act permits for traditional pollution. No new layers of bureaucracy
will be created. However, the cost of fossil-based energy would slowly
rise. Because it would be legally difficult for the EPA to establish an
emissions trading system, companies could not use market means to
mitigate those costs.<\/p>\n
pollution reduction is the key selling point of a congressionally
established cap-and-trade market as opposed to a command-and-control
regime. However, Nelson has also indicated he opposes a cap-and-trade system<\/a>:<\/p>\n
command-and-control regime—which Nelson has said he opposes on
economic grounds. But he claims to oppose a cap with “trade” on populist grounds<\/a>.
In short, he’s using logically inconsistent excuses to block both
executive branch and legislative branch action on global warming.<\/p>\n
polluters and support clean energy investment. Or maybe he’s pandering
to his corporate polluter donors, who need senators like Nelson to
maintain the Bush-Cheney status quo.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/a.rfihub.com\/eus.gif?eui=2223\"\/)
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"