|
Michael Bennet on Energy & Oil
Democratic Presidential Challenger; CO Senator
|
|
|
Endorsed by LCV to tackle the climate crisis
Betting that climate change will be at the top of voters' minds in 2022, the League of Conservation Voters Action Fund made its first round of endorsements, backing nine incumbent senators--all Democrats.The endorsements, first shared with CQ Roll
Call, went to Michael Bennet of Colorado, Alex Padilla of California, Patty Murray of Washington, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Raphael Warnock of Georgia and
Ron Wyden of Oregon.
"Voters really are demanding that the administration, the Senate, and the House do something about investing in clean energy jobs and tackling the climate crisis in 2022," said the vice president of governmental affairs for
LCV Action Fund. Climate change has been growing in importance for voters over time, and a majority of registered voters said it was a very or somewhat important factor.
Source: Rollcall.com on LCV 2022 endorsements
, Jun 10, 2021
US is only government officially questioning climate change
Paris, where the United States in 2015 had helped lead the world toward a landmark accord--currently endorsed by 196 nations--to address climate change. Now, under its new president, the United States had become the only country in the world to commit
to withdraw from the agreement. The US government was also the only one officially questioning whether climate change was even happening. In Europe, in countries such as
Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, parties on the left and right fight ferociously over many issues--but not over whether the planet is warming. Rather they sometimes fight over which party can claim more credit for trying to address the problem.
In the United States, an entire political party has embraced climate-change denial as political orthodoxy.
Source: Land of Flickering Lights, by Michael Bennet, p. 73
, Jun 25, 2019
Transition to renewable energy in a ways that create jobs
Eight out of ten Coloradans support new policies to reduce carbon emissions, and nine out of ten support more investment in renewable energy. We have seen the promise of drawing energy from cleaner and more diverse sources.
Compared with other states, Colorado ranks fourth in wind jobs; tenth in oil and gas jobs; and ninth in solar jobs.
Our largest utility, Xcel energy, has publicly committed to making a 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2050, while saving its customers money. Renewable energy now drives more than $9 billion of economic activity annually;
our other outdoor industries account for $28 billion. Coloradans perceive climate change as a real threat but are confident we can transition our economy in ways that will foster growth and create jobs.
Source: Land of Flickering Lights, by Michael Bennet, p. 75
, Jun 25, 2019
Build Keystone pipeline, or oil will be transported by rail
According to the State Department in 2014, regardless of whether a pipeline was built, the oil sands in Alberta would still be developed. If the US did not permit the [Keystone XL] pipeline, the oil would be transported by railcars, which were arguably
worse than a pipeline in terms of environmental and safety consequences.There might have been good reasons to defeat the pipeline. If the tar sands were in Colorado instead of Canada, I would chain myself to a fence to avoid the environmental
degradation that would occur. But concern about climate change was not a sound reason to oppose the pipeline.
I believed that opposing Keystone on the basis of climate change would destroy my credibility as I argued for the much more significant Clean
Power Plan. It was not just my credibility; the credibility of the entire climate science movement was at stake. I have seldom felt this alone in my public life. I voted to build the pipeline when the issue came to the Senate floor several times.
Source: Land of Flickering Lights, by Michael Bennet, p.100-1
, Jun 25, 2019
Climate change is major issue; but not Green New Deal
Bennet has been consistent on the issue of climate change, working toward a comprehensive approach to combat climate change.
He was not a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, but he recommends investing in renewable energy.
Source: Axios.com "What you need to know about 2020"
, May 2, 2019
Permanent tax incentives to spur renewable energy growth
We also need to prioritize energy independence, because our job growth on clean energy has been 18% since 1998, double our job growth in other areas.
That's why I support a federal renewable energy standard of 25% by 2025, and permanent tax incentives to spur renewable energy growth.
Source: League of Women Voters 2010 Candidate Questionnaire
, Aug 11, 2010
Voted NO on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.
Congressional Summary:To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change. The Clean Air Act is amended by adding a section entitled, "No Regulation of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases". In this section, the term 'greenhouse gas' means any of the following:- Water vapor
- Carbon dioxide
- Methane
- Nitrous oxide
- Sulfur hexafluoride
- Hydrofluorocarbons
- Perfluorocarbons
- Any other substance subject to, or proposed to be subject to regulation to address climate change.
The definition of the term 'air pollutant' does not include a greenhouse gas, except for purposes of addressing concerns other than climate change.Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Sen. McConnell, R-KY]: The White House is trying to impose a backdoor national energy tax through the EPA. It is a strange way to respond to rising gas prices.
But it is perfectly consistent with the current Energy Secretary's previously stated desire to get gas prices in the US up to where they are in Europe.
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Sen. Lautenberg, D-NJ]:We hear the message that has been going around: Let's get rid of the EPA's ability to regulate. Who are they to tell us what businesses can do? Thank goodness that in this democratic society in which we live, there are rules and regulations to keep us as a civilized nation. The Supreme Court and scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency agreed that the Clean Air Act is a tool we must use to stop dangerous pollution. This amendment, it is very clear, favors one group--the business community. The Republican tea party politicians say: "Just ignore the Supreme Court. Ignore the scientists. We know better." They want to reward the polluters by crippling EPA's ability to enforce the Clean Air Act.
Status: Failed 50-50 (3/5 required)
Reference: Energy Tax Prevention Act;
Bill Am183 to S.49
; vote number 11-SV054
on Apr 6, 2011
Voted YES on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax.
Congressional Summary:- On budget resolutions, it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any bill or amendment that includes a National energy tax increase which would have widespread applicability on middle-income taxpayers.
- The term "middle-income" taxpayers means single individuals with $200,000 or less in adjusted gross income and married couples filing jointly with $250,000 or less.
- The term "widespread applicability" includes the definition with respect to individual income taxpayers.
- The term "National energy tax increase" means any legislation that the Congressional Budget Office would score as leading to an increase in the costs of producing, generating or consuming energy.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R, SC): The climate change proposal that was in the President's budget would create a massive tax increase on anybody who uses energy, and that would be every American middle-class family, which already has a tough time getting by. This [amendment creates a procedure to block] any bill that would raise the cost of energy on our middle-class families who are struggling to get by. I ask the Senate to rally around this concept. We can deal with climate change without passing a $3,000-per-household energy tax on the families of America who are having a hard time paying their bills.
Opponent's argument to vote No:No senators spoke against the amendment.
Reference: Graham Amendment;
Bill S.Amdt.910 to S.Con.Res.13
; vote number 2009-S135
on Apr 2, 2009
Voted YES on requiring full Senate debate and vote on cap-and-trade.
Congressional Summary:AMENDMENT PURPOSE: To prohibit the use of reconciliation in the Senate for climate change legislation involving a cap and trade system.Sec. 202 is amended by inserting at the end the following: "The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget shall not revise the allocations in this resolution if the legislation is reported from any committee pursuant to sec. 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974."
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R, SC): This idea to most people of a debate about reconciliation probably is mind-numbing and not very interesting. But there is a process in the Congress where you can take legislation and basically put it on a fast track. It is subject to 50 votes.
The whole idea of the Senate kind of cooling things down has served the country well. In that regard, to end debate you need 60 votes. If 41 Senators are opposed to a piece of legislation, strongly enough to come to the
floor every day and talk about it, that legislation doesn't go anywhere. If you took climate change and health care, two very controversial, big-ticket items, and put them on the reconciliation track, you would basically be doing a lot of damage to the role of the Senate in a constitutional democracy.
Senator Byrd, who is one of the smartest people to ever serve in the Senate about rules and parliamentary aspects of the Senate, said that to put climate change and health care reform in reconciliation is like "a freight train through Congress" and is "an outrage that must be resisted." Senator Conrad said: "I don't believe reconciliation was ever intended for this purpose."
I think both of them are right. Under the law, you cannot put Social Security into reconciliation because we know how controversial and difficult that is. I come here in support of the Johanns amendment that rejects that idea.
Opponent's argument to vote No:No senators spoke against the amendment.
Reference: Johanns Amendment;
Bill S.Amdt.735 to S.Con.Res.13
; vote number 2009-S126
on Apr 1, 2009
Supports renewable energy tax credits.
Bennet supports the CC survey question on renewable energy tax credits
The Christian Coalition voter guide [is] one of the most powerful tools Christians have ever had to impact our society during elections. This simple tool has helped educate tens of millions of citizens across this nation as to where candidates for public office stand on key faith and family issues.
The CC survey summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: "Tax credits for investment in renewable sources of energy, (such as wind, solar & biomass)"
Source: Christian Coalition Survey 10-CC-q18 on Aug 11, 2010
Page last updated: Sep 16, 2022; copyright 1999-2022 Jesse Gordon and OnTheIssues.org