Montana’s governor was for the national energy tax before he was against it.
Is hyper-bipolar a word?
If so, it would aptly describe the global warming policy views of Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who this year also has additional roles as chairman of both the Democratic Governors Association and the Western Governors Association.
Maher: …it’s an incentive to make clean energy.
Maher (shocked): Maybe?!
Schweitzer: It also says to the biggest utilities in America, “We’re going to add a trillion dollars to your bottom line. We’re going to franchise you, and only you, to be the only producers of CO2.” I think it’s the wrong approach.
Maher: You do?!
Yes Bill, he does. Maybe. But he didn’t before. Probably.
Gov. Schweitzer still (we think) believes that, despite leveling (if not lowering) global temperatures since the late 1990s, that fossil fuel combustion to energize human wants and needs is dangerous. All those byproduct greenhouse gases overheat the earth and cause all sorts of trouble, you see.
Back in December 2005 Schweitzer created a blue-ribbon panel to recommend policy actions to reduce those nasty gases. The result was the Montana Climate Change Advisory Group, which delivered its recommendations to the governor in November of 2007. Schweitzer was so inspired that he joined six other state governors (and two Canadian provincial ministers) as members of the Western Climate Initiative, whose primary goal was to form a joint carbon emissions reduction agreement. His new partners welcomed him aboard: “We look forward to working with you and your representatives over the coming months as we move toward our August 2008 goal to design a regional cap-and-trade program.”
That move comported with earlier statements by Schweitzer, including testimony before the Senate Finance Committee in February 2007. “I’m just going to give you some suggestions…,” he said. “Develop a cap-and-trade system. We have states that are going it alone. Washington, Oregon, Arizona, New Mexico and California announced yesterday. There will be other coalitions. We can’t have a cap-and-trade system that is regional. We need a cap-and-trade system for carbon dioxide that is national.”
And shortly before joining WCI, in an article that explained many governors’ support for cap-and-trade legislation co-sponsored by Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman and Republican Sen. John Warner, Schweitzer told the New York Times, “Here’s a novel concept for Congress. Do something. Anything. Move.” The article also noted an Environmental Defense-sponsored television ad in support of the bill, in which Schweitzer appeared with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.
Then shortly after the November election last year, Schweitzer (as vice chairman) co-signed a letter with Huntsman to President Obama, on behalf of the Western Governors Association. The pair urged immediate action to solve “our energy dilemma,” using code words for cap-and-trade: “[We] propose a mandatory national system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions that makes maximum use of market-based mechanisms.”
But the next month Schweitzer jerked away from his embrace of cap-and-trade, in an interview with the Great Falls Tribune. “I’m not a proponent of a carbon cap-and-trade system,” he said. “I think that it tends to transfer a lot of wealth from consumers of electricity to utilities.”
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online