Although his legislation failed, the late Connecticut Senator and one-time vice presidential candidate kept attention on the issue after the U.S. withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol.
cap and trade, which provides assurances about total aggregate emissions, but not price
carbon tax, which provides assurances about price, but not aggregate emissions
They’re both reasonable approaches, and we’d have been better off with a working cap and trade system than nothing at all, which was the actual right-wing position.
I’m absolutely not arguing that we are better off without them. I’m not sure what the models are predicting they can do at this point rather than 20 years ago, but I’m not arguing for doing nothing versus caps/taxes.
I’m just saying it’s not what I’d characterize as a “left” position. I’d call it a center-right position.
Are you referring to cap and trade - a market based solution - as “left wing?”
There are two market based approaches out there:
They’re both reasonable approaches, and we’d have been better off with a working cap and trade system than nothing at all, which was the actual right-wing position.
I’m absolutely not arguing that we are better off without them. I’m not sure what the models are predicting they can do at this point rather than 20 years ago, but I’m not arguing for doing nothing versus caps/taxes.
I’m just saying it’s not what I’d characterize as a “left” position. I’d call it a center-right position.
However you characterize it: he favored action over unbridled emissions.
That would be a different conversation.
Was the topic, if you remember, for which an example of him being left would help.