Sen. Michael Bennet’s campaign latched on to comments made yesterday at an appearance by Sen. Jim Inhofe on behalf of Ken Buck at a campaign visit in Fort Collins to bash the Republican challenger’s position on global warming.
The Buck campaign responded to the global warming “denier” charge:
“Ken believes there is global warming, but thinks the evidence points to it being natural, rather than manmade,” he said.
That position is consistent with what Buck said on the primary campaign trail.
“I’ll tell you, I have looked at global warming, now climate change, from both sides,” Buck said in August to “Talking Points Memo.” “While I think the earth is warming, I don’t think that man-made causes are the primary factor. I am one of those people that Al Gore refers to as a skeptic.”
But as Battle ‘10 pointed out in September, Bennet gave ideological cover for the House cap-and-trade bill before waffling on his own support for the measure or any other proposed legislation as a solution to global warming, and instead looked to the Environmental Protection Agency and governmental regulation to achieve the same goals through the backdoor and without oversight.
The Buck campaign quickly fired back at Bennet’s record on global warming–including the failed cap-and-trade legislation–and his substituted preference for EPA regulations that would enable him to avoid an anti-business, anti-jobs record:
“The best way to address environmental challenges is by building a strong coalition of stakeholders, including state and local interests, not draconian measures imposed by Washington that will have virtually no impact. Sadly, Bennet’s so-called solution to global warming would be all cost for no climate gain. Even Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, admitted publically that unilateral action by the United States would result in negligible change in temperature.
“Appointed Senator Bennet is President Obama’s strongest ally in the US Senate for imposing job-killing greenhouse gas regulations through the EPA. This approach, even more extreme than cap-and-trade legislation that died in the Senate, would mean Obama’s EPA would be regulating sources in Colorado including schools, nursing homes, and churches, to name a few.
“Importantly, the Obama EPA regulations would put Coloradans out of work and drive up energy costs on consumers at a time that we can least afford it. When Senator Bennet had the chance to stand up with a number of moderate Senate Democrats to stop the Obama EPA, he stood proudly with President Obama and the liberals in Washington and voted in favor of letting EPA move forward as early as January 2011. Colorado needs a voice in the Senate who will stand up for Colorado, not a rubberstamp for the Obama EPA.”
Back in June 2010, the bipartisan Democratic supporters lamented the demise of the so-called Murkowski resolution:
The resolution, authored by U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), would have prevented the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to impose back-door climate regulations, a purpose for which the bill was never intended.
Democrat U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), who joined the bipartisan coalition that supported this resolution, stated: “I intend to vote for Senator Murkowski’s Resolution of Disapproval because I believe we must send a strong message that the fate of West Virginia’s economy, our manufacturing industries, and our workers should not be solely in the hands of the EPA.”
While Democrat U.S. Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE), who also supported the bipartisan resolution said: “I think the EPA needs to understand it’s not the fourth branch of government… Just because they are dissatisfied with the level of progress of the legislative branch doesn’t empower them to become super legislators.”
And Democrat U.S Representative John Dingell (D-MI), who authored the Clean Air Act, previously called the potential results of this back-door cap-and-trade scheme “a glorious mess,” involving “inherently political decisions that should be made by an elected and accountable Congress.”