Speech is running just a bit late ... we're gonna start the broadcast now to take UStream.tv for a jog before the race.

Tim

John is right about the 1993 BTU tax history, I'll just add that Clinton's proposal was also a victim of one of the most sophisticated grassroots/astroturf lobby campaigns ever mounted before or since by the business groups (NFIB, Am Petrolium Insitiute, US Chamber), etc.  Clinton's proposal was right on substance but a lot of the details were half-baked & the White House made a lot of rookie mistakes.  Clinton got burned and he never went up against the business lobby on this topic during the rest of the term.

In the interest of full disclosure, in my reckless youth, in 1993, I was part of the lobby team for big business and polluters on this issue.  Perhaps more than any issue I ever worked on for the dark side, I regret this one the most.  If Dodd's idea ever gains traction big business will go after it, hard, very hard with buckets of cash. Don't underestimate the opposition.

Thank you.

It appears chris and matt are incapable of talking about anything without dissing a clinton.

i know this is how one boosts up cred in the blogosphere, but it's getting out of hand.

Here is a very informative diary:

It's hard not to like Chris Dodd, especially when he keeps making so much sense.  Dodd's plan on a corporate carbon tax is here.

This country has serious serious problems and it's going to take global cooperation the likes of which we've never seen or even imagined to have a chance of solving them.  One of the steps along the way is to consider structural changes to our economy so that spewing carbon into the atmosphere is expensive.  

This isn't just a plan, either.  This is one area where jawboning actually has an effect, as we've seen with private equity groups taking over energy producers and shuttering their carbon spewing plans.  Energy planning cycles are 20-30 years long, so industry people tend to try and anticipate and plan around probable legislative initiatives.  A carbon tax is something Wall Street has been anticipating for some time, which means that capital risk to polluting industries is going to increase.  This is especially true when a Presidential candidate puts it on the table for debate.  And lest we forget, Dodd is the Chair of the Banking Committee, which has pretty broad sweep on currency issues.  

Anyway, since MyDD has become obscure-but-very-important-policy blog, I'd figure I'd mention this.  A carbon tax hasn't been seriously considered since 1993.  And now it's in the Presidential race.

here's the same diary written by someone trying to get ahold of some of the my left wing crowd:

It's hard not to like Chris Dodd, especially when he keeps making so much sense.  Dodd's plan on a corporate carbon tax is here.

This country has serious serious problems and it's going to take global cooperation the likes of which we've never seen or even imagined to have a chance of solving them.  One of the steps along the way is to consider structural changes to our economy so that spewing carbon into the atmosphere is expensive.  

This isn't just a plan, either.  This is one area where jawboning actually has an effect, as we've seen with private equity groups taking over energy producers and shuttering their carbon spewing plans.  Energy planning cycles are 20-30 years long, so industry people tend to try and anticipate and plan around probable legislative initiatives.  A carbon tax is something Wall Street has been anticipating for some time, which means that capital risk to polluting industries is going to increase.  This is especially true when a Presidential candidate puts it on the table for debate.  And lest we forget, Dodd is the Chair of the Banking Committee, which has pretty broad sweep on currency issues.  

Anyway, since MyDD has become obscure-but-very-important-policy blog, I'd figure I'd mention this.  A carbon tax hasn't been seriously considered since Clinton sold out Democratic members of Congress on the BTU tax in 1993.  And now it's in the Presidential race.

There is a very serious, and seriously wonky, debate over whether a Cap and Trade system, which Edwards has proposed, or a Carbon Tax would be better to reduce carbon emissions.  As I unserstand it the big plus of a Cap system is more predictable reductions in carbon.  

In any case I am glad Dodd is adding another serious climate/energy proposal.

For the record, Gore supports a combo of both caps and taxes.

Any chance yall could pull a Massachusetts and strip the appointment power from the governor?  Mass has a veto-proof Dem majority in the legislature, but I doubt CT does as well.  On the other hand, it might not be that hard to get an initiative on the 2008 ballot that calls for a special election 90 days from any Senate vacancy.  Voters would pass that pretty easily, I'd think.  No one likes the idea of their governor getting to choose their Senator for them.

It's not.  You gotta hit the play button.  At least on my computer and everyone elses seen.

Tim

Just like here

Tim

And even after you pause it, it turns itself back on after awhile.  Definitely annoying.

Maybe Matt could edit his post so the video's behind a "Read More" tag?

From Carl Wunsch, featured in your "educational material":

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.

An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context:

I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.

I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters and do understand something of the ways in which one can be misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had an experience like this one. My appearance in the "Global Warming Swindle" is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be.