How would you vote on abolishing the 'Social Cost of Carbon'?

[Hifly]

Would you support prohibiting Government Agencies such as the EPA from considering the 'Social Cost of Carbon' in decision making processes?

Aye (D)

This 'cost' is just a hypothetical, speculative financial barrier propagated by extremists to try and obstruct good projects such as the Keystone Pipeline.
Working people are concerned about jobs, not made-up costs.

[Lief 🗽]

Nay (not a climate change denier)

[TNF]

No, I wouldn't support a prohibition on considering the effect of climatic change in decision-making processes, which could wipe out human civilization as we know it if we continue to utilize carbon-emitting fuels. The idea that there's a trade off between creating jobs and protecting the environment is false. We can create jobs that reverse the damage of climate change and that help us transition to a clean fuel economy, and we can do so without sacrificing working class living standards and working class communities to dirty energy extraction.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

No (care about the future)

[Citizen Hats]

Nay.  Congress could do the British Columbia solution and tax carbon emissions while improving the overall business climate, but because they don't we have to resort to the heavy hand of regulation. 

[New_Conservative]

Aye (likes jobs)

[RI]

No, if only because I don't support elected officials without technical expertise telling those with it how to do their jobs.

[TNF]

Aye (likes jobs)

But not human civilization continuing to exist on this planet, apparently.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Would you support prohibiting Government Agencies such as the EPA from considering the 'Social Cost of Carbon' in decision making processes?

Aye (D)

This 'cost' is just a hypothetical, speculative financial barrier propagated by extremists to try and obstruct good projects such as the Keystone Pipeline.
Working people are concerned about jobs, not made-up costs.

Do you also support prohibiting Government Agencies from considering the costs of regulatory compliance in decision making processes.  Those costs are largely hypothetical, speculative financial barriers propagated by extremists to try and obstruct good governance.

[Mr. Smith]

Nay, because I give a damn about the planet.

[ElectionsGuy]

I would vote Nay, I'm definitely not a crazy environmental regulationist (or whatever) but I think eliminating the consideration of Carbon into the atmosphere goes too far and could significantly harm humanity/the planet.

[MadmanMotley]

Nay, there shouldn't be a ban on considering any costs.

[Goldwater]

Nay, there shouldn't be a ban on considering any costs.

[Sopranos Republican]

NAY (not for destroying the planet, or banning free speech in debate)

[MurrayBannerman]

Aye (likes jobs)

Nay (Likes the prospects of an industry ready to explode and dominate the energy markets)

[bedstuy]

You should consider the costs and benefits when you do a cost/benefit analysis.  (sane)

I find it so childish that some people want to consciously ignore major problems in the world because they would prefer they didn't exist.  The environment is not some hippy/lefty niche idea.  If the ocean becomes battery acid slurry that covers our coastal cities and deserts engulf our agricultural areas, might that affect jobs too?