Cap and trade is not an easy one for refiners, so we tried to get some moderation in the bill, and we did, but not near as much I would like.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Cap-and-trade is a dangerous policy fraught with the potential for significant corruption, and it would hurt my constituents and our economy by raising energy costs.
As a policy-maker in our country, I would much rather we have that investment in our refineries.
When I was in Minnesota serving in the state Senate and in Washington, D.C., I did everything I could to defeat cap and trade. I didn't work to implement cap and trade.
I think we can lower our emissions. I think the world will be better off if we did that, and we can do it without cap and trade.
I hope the EPA will listen to the many votes over the years in Congress opposing cap-and-trade and rescind that proposed rule.
Nobody in this country realizes that cap-and-trade is a tax - and it's a great big one.
We need to do more to conserve fuel or face tougher choices such as steep price increase or even quantitative restrictions.
The problem with cap-and-trade and programs such as carbon capture and storage is that they all assume that business as usual can continue. The financial meltdown and peak oil has pretty much demonstrated that business as usual's not going to work.
We as a nation have no choice but to conserve fuel to the best of our abilities or be prepared for harsh measures like steep price increase, if the need so arises.
While I have strongly and consistently supported the Clean Power Plan, and continue to do so, I cannot and will not support a proposal for a cap-and-trade system.