America needs to be a land with a clean environment. We support clean-air and clean-water action and believe in conservationism. The Initiative does not support "cap and trade" policies as they are currently formulated.
[Related -Volume Is Usually Low At Turning Points]
Ah, so if they were formalated "differently"......
And what is "differently"?
Johnson adopted the National Governors Association policy:
The Governors recommend that the federal government continue to seek the advice of state and local officials and nongovernmental organizations with expertise in economic, trade, jobs, public health, and environmental issues and assess the potential economic and environmental consequences of proposed policies and measures, including a thorough and broadly accepted analysis of costs and benefits. The Governors recommend that the US:
- not sign or ratify any agreement that mandates new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the US, unless such an agreement mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for developing countries within the same compliance period;
[Related -Bullish And Bearish Over Different Time Frames]
In other words, it's perfectly ok to tax CO2 emissions provided everyone gets taxed. (There's the definition of "as currently formulated"!)
- aggressively undertake strategies for including emissions-reduction commitments from developing countries;
Such as, for example, taxing carbon so long as everyone gets taxed?
- not sign or ratify any agreement that would result in serious harm to the US economy;
So long as everyone has the jackboot of government on their neck equally it's all just fine, even though there is no scientific proof of harm and indeed there is plenty of evidence that climate change is a natural phenomena caused by that big orange ball in the sky (otherwise known as "The Sun.")
- support flexible policies and measures in continuing negotiations that provide an opportunity for the US to meet global environmental goals without jeopardizing US jobs, trade, or economic competitiveness;
Is there a Libertarian thought anywhere within this paragraph? I'm having trouble finding it.
- insist on flexible implementation timetables in continuing negotiations that permit affected parties adequate time to plan strategies for meeting commitments; and
Commitments eh? Sounds like the government mandating things to me. I see jackboots everywhere!
- ensure that no single sector, state, or nation is disproportionately disadvantaged by the implementation of international policies.
Oh, here we are. Let's just make it explicit -- the imposition of taxes on carbon are just fine and in fact necessary in Johnson's view, so long as they fall on everyone!
If appropriate international commitments are established and are ratified by the US, the Governors believe implementation should be allowed to be achieved through cost-effective market-based activities, which account for scientifically verifiable and accountable reductions in greenhouse gas levels regardless of where the reductions are achieved. Any multinational emissions trading program must provide a flexible and workable framework that takes full advantage of market forces and maximizes international participation.
There's that force thing again...
Damn Governor, in your own words.....
Go run as a Republican or Democrat.
You're not a Libertarian and in fact your own statements evidence intent to violate the non-initiation of force requirement for all members of the party.