Expect carbon regs after 2008

Duke expects carbon regulation after '08:

Duke Energy's Chief Executive Jim Rogers said he expects congressional action on regulating carbon gas emissions after the 2008 election, with the new rules taking effect about five years later.

Speaking at an investors' event this morning, Rogers said he spent the past week on Capitol Hill discussing the issue with the staff of U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the incoming chairwoman of the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee.

With Democrats' sweeping victory in congressional elections, a national program to regulate carbon emissions now seems likely. But when and what it might look like have been left to speculation. Regulation could be a tax on carbon gas emissions or some sort of national cap.

Comments

[Jim Casey]

Cap and Trade with a safety valve - it could be done tomorrow and its called The McCain-Leiberman Climate Stewardship Act. I think the last time the Senate voted it got 47 or 48 votes of approval.

The General

[joshua corning]

With Democrats' sweeping victory in congressional elections, a national program to regulate carbon emissions now seems likely.

Considering that it is unlikely the dems will retain power past 2008 without some concessions to the libertarian leaning voters, who abandoned the republicans in this last election, and those concessions (if any, I am not holding my breath) would likely be on issues they don't get votes on, like global warming issues, i would have to say I have my doubts.

[Dano]

Considering that it is unlikely the dems will retain power past 2008 without some concessions to the libertarian leaning voters, who abandoned the republicans in this last election,

5-10% of the electorate wanting to spread possessive individualism throughout a land that values civic culture isn't going to get its agenda enacted. Dems aren't going to concede gutting land use laws, let me tell you. That PPR anti-zoning crap isn't gonna fly. Maybe if you try incremental redress at the parcel level you'll get somewhere. Otherwise, take your lesson from the spanking in ID, CA, WA, and Napa, and the voters being p*ssed in OR.

C regulation is coming. You can smell it in the wind.

Best,

D

[joshua corning]

5-10% of the electorate wanting to spread possessive individualism throughout a land that values civic culture isn't going to get its agenda enacted. Dems aren't going to concede gutting land use laws, let me tell you.

Actually it is 15% and that exact electorate just put the dems in control of the house and senate...plus it is not like the environmental vote or the social conservative vote...ie it is a swing vote that both parties need to win.

[Dano]

Actually it is 15% and that exact electorate just put the dems in control of the house and senate...

Don't you read your own mag that quotes this survey at 9%?

What put the Dems in control was repudiation of BushCo, not Ls disgusted with NeoCon big gummint.

Nonetheless, 5-10% of the electorate wanting to spread possessive individualism throughout a land that values civic culture isn't going to get its agenda enacted. Dems aren't going to concede gutting land use laws. That PPR anti-zoning crap isn't gonna fly.

Best,

D

[allen claxton]

I maintain my expectation that we'll see carbon regs before Bush leaves office. Anti-climate action groups aren't going to get a better deal after he's gone.

[joshua corning]

5-10% of the electorate wanting to spread possessive individualism throughout a land that values civic culture isn't going to get its agenda enacted. Dems aren't going to concede gutting land use laws. That PPR anti-zoning crap isn't gonna fly.

I thought this article was about carbon regs and the longevity of dem control of the house and senate?

Oh wait here is the articles title:

Expect carbon regs after 2008

and in the article it says:

With Democrats' sweeping victory in congressional elections, a national program to regulate carbon emissions now seems likely.

So in other words what you are talking about has nothing to do with the article or with what I am talking about.

[joshua corning]

by the way we are both wrong...it is 13%

From Airforce One's former on flight magazine the New Republic:

Libertarian-leaning voters started drifting away from the GOP even before Katrina, civil war in Iraq, and Mark Foley launched the general stampede. In their recent Cato-published study "The Libertarian Vote," David Boaz and David Kirby analyzed polling data from Gallup, the American National Election Studies, and the Pew Research Center and concluded that 13 percent of the population, or 28 million voting-age Americans, can be fairly classified as libertarian-leaning. Back in 2000, this group voted overwhelmingly for Bush, supporting him over Al Gore by a 72-20 margin. By 2004, however, John Kerry--whose only discernible libertarian credential was that he wasn't George W. Bush--got 38 percent of the libertarian vote, while Bush's support fell to 59 percent. Congressional races showed a similar trend. In 2002, libertarians favored Republican House candidates by a 70-23 spread and Republican Senate candidates by a 74-15 margin. Things tightened up considerably in 2004, though, as the GOP edge fell to 53-44 in House races and 54-43 in Senate contests.

[Dano]

I read that TNR & he was on NPR the other day. The Cato figures IMV are wishful thinking as the cohort is chameleon-like with the regime in power.

So in other words what you are talking about has nothing to do with the article or with what I am talking about.

No. You said there'd have to be concessions to Ls, remember? Sure you do. The tangent started from there when you averred that this bloc would be in the way of C regalayshun. I'm disagreeing with the size of your bloc, and the conclusion that na ga ha pen.

Best,

D