From the link, part of Warner's platform is "Implement cap-and-trade proposals to responsibly limit carbon emissions."
There's a lot of money being spent on energy, and it's flowing into the pockets of energy companies. (And the government.) Companies that aren't generating and selling energy to you HATE to see that money flowing elsewhere . . . and they can spend money to buy a Congressman, too.
Cap-and-trade is, at its core, a crooked back-door swindle to see to it that some of your energy dollars end up in the pockets of people who don't produce, supply, or provide you with energy, but who HAVE bought some politicians.
And it would appear Mark Warner is one of them.
I'm not familiar with "cap and trade" and I don't really have time to look it up at the moment, but how does his support for that invalidate the rest of his plan, which includes increased use of natural gas and nuclear, reducing barriers to drilling, and increasing incentives for companies to expand refining capacity (something people on this board have been screaming for)?
It's not a perfect plan, but it seems a bit more well rounded than the Right (drill more and only drill!) and the Left (wind and solar only!).
Chris
