With the growing discussion of the reduction of emissions, even Democrats are poised to oppose the President on cap and trade:
Senate Democrats are breaking with President Obama over his plan for sweeping new climate-change laws that he says will rake in billions of dollars to help offset massive budget deficits.
The dissenters, mostly Democrats from Rust Belt states likely to be hit hardest by the proposed environmental rules, question the economic impact of the program that would cap carbon-dioxide emissions and then sell to businesses the right to emit that carbon dioxide.
The senators also want their states to get a chunk of the windfall from selling the credits – $646 billion over 10 years by Mr. Obama’s estimate.
“We should ensure that revenue generated by a cap-and-trade system goes back to the consumers, states and industries that are most affected by the changes,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown, Ohio Democrat.
A cap and trade program does the following: it forces energy producing companies to become more environmentally friendly by instituting a “cap” on their actual emissions. If company x produces energy with less emissions than what the government deems the maximum allowed, company x can have the option to sell or “trade” their excess unused emissions to other energy companies, at an undetermined price. Presumably, as time moves on, the “cap” on emissions will continually diminish, thus further reducing harmful pollution into our air. Fine. Great.
It sounds nice and wonderful. Unfortunately, the implementation of such a program would be more devastating to the world than the actual pollution that is emitted into the air.
First, the cost to the American family would be catastrophic. The estimates of how much a modern American family or household will pay under a cap and trade program is wide ranging. If a new program will initiated, the average American household would have to pay $800 to $1400 more a year in energy bills (electric, gas, etc). Even more liberal scholars and foundations note that the potential increases hit hard at every American’s check book. Add to that an increase in electricity prices by 35% to 65% and your Obama Tax Credit magically disappears into thin air. More seriously, a cap and trade program is akin to a hidden tax where we don’t see our income disappear at a greater rate but rather, through our usage of basic needs, we are forced to pay increasing amounts of money that hit home after we deposit our pay checks, solely in the interest of helping the environment. It’s apparent that when American families have less money in the bank and thus, less money to inject into an ailing economy, the proposal for a cap and trade program should be soundly rejected.
While a cap and trade program is harmful and unfair to the American family, it’s implementation is even more dangerous for the American economy. Up front, analysts expect job losses to range from 1 to 3 million within the first 10 years of it’s starting point. The potential for lost jobs span from the energy industry itself, to every other faction of our economic engine. When people have less money to put into the system, less goods are produced, and thus, a lessened need to hire employees. But even more than that, our manufacturing industries would be prone to sending even more work over seas due to the reduced expense of energy bills abroad coupled with cheaper labor. Every day, Mr. Obama reminds America that we’re in a crisis and were a cap and trade program initiated, our crisis would exponentially deepen.
Knowing all of this, we all should ask the question: Do the benefits of emissions reductions outweigh the harms of massive job losses and reduced money in our bank accounts? The answer is a resounding NO. Even with a cap and trade program, environmental gains would be trivial at best. Recall the massive debate over our would-have-been entry into the Kyoto Treaty eight years ago. The two most pressing concerns that President Bush had, with respect to our participation in the treaty was the competitive disadvantage it would place on America (lost jobs, slower economic growth) when competing on the open marketplace with China and India and further, the lack of clear scientific evidence that our participation in the protocol would lead to reduced carbon emissions. We face the same situation now. Scientists estimate that as a result of an American cap and trade program, the earth would have to potential to cool at a negligible .07 degrees Celsius over forty years. Couple all of this with the vast evidence of stagnant global temperatures and various other methods for reducing carbon emissions without hitting American industries at their core, and the pressing need for a cap and trade program is tenuous.
All in all, a cap and trade program is dangerous for America, especially in a time of economic uncertainty. If various Democratic lawmakers, such as liberal Sen. Rockefeller can make the case that a cap and trade program is “too ambitious,” who else can Obama turn to? This plan is just one of many plans Obama has made to change the way our government and societal life work. As with anything, just because it looks good, doesn’t mean it tastes good. A cap and trade program looks good on principle but in it’s application, the American economy and the American spirit are in serious jeopardy.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:59 am
Oh good. I’d been wondering if Obama had the votes to shove this down our throats. Looks like we might be able to actually fight this.
For the record, I actually believe global warming is happening. I just don’t see the point in wrecking our economy if it’s not going to have much of an effect in stopping it.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:44 am
Thomas,
Think about Global Climate Change for a moment (Global Warming is no longer the proper term to use). If it is happening as you believe, do you really think a cap and trade will do anything to stop it? Or even slow it? The US will be bailing out the Titanic with a thimble.
Consider some of the following:
China, India, most of SE Asia and numerous other growth areas are exempt from any carbon offset programs. Their combined output exceeds the US output of carbon emissions and their populations are growing at an ever increasing rate. The demands for power and industrial goods only grow. Look at other large carbon producers, like Russia. Russia has not changed much since the old USSR days. Sure there is a new government, and the old communists are out of power, but not really. Putin (old KGB) does as he pleases and cannot be relied on to do anything let alone curb emissions. Eastern Europe is on the verge of economic collapse, again keep an eye on Putin for that (though that is a discussion for another day) The EU is turning their collective backs on their eastern brethren. There will be no EU bailout, as most countries are barely afloat as it is. When faced with a crashing economy, carbon offsets will be the last item on the political agenda. The sky will turn black with emissions if it means keeping the power on.
Is the future completely bleak? I pray not. Green energy will be a reality one day. But to make it to that day we need to be strong now and stifling growth is not an option.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:27 am
Nothing will happen unless Edgar Cayce is correct on climate change
and the Atlantic coast goes to Norfolk and wipes out Florida, east
Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.
That would be ironic, considering the party’s stance on global warming.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:18 pm
2:
Please re-read my post.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:35 pm
What is your solution Anthony?
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Maybe they could cap things like arsenic, sulfur and carbon monoxide which are actually dangerous, rather than carbon dioxide which plants can’t live without. Then again, I’m not one of those solar-deniers in Gore’s camp.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:06 pm
It is one thing to be a solar deniers, it is another to suggest that Georgia could be under the Atlantic Ocean.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:43 pm
solution to what, Tano? You see, I don’t believe “global climate change” is pressing. Sure, it exists. Everything is changing and flowing all the time, but the earths tectonics change constantly, our alignment in the universe with it’s relationship to the sun changes constantly. Most scientists argue that the gravest concerns is the carbon emissions from cars, not energy producing plants or manufacturing plants. I’d argue that the government double the current tax credit on car buyers that purchase hybrids and/blue diesels and offer car manufacturers incentives to put out more of these vehicles. I, personally, still don’t think the hybrid car is worth it. I don’t see the cost-benefit differential. But it’s improving quickly. Regardless, it’s undeniable that if we have more effiecient cars on the roads, that means the air is marginally cleaner, and effectively, we don’t have to fire people or force them into paying huge penalities. What’s even more shocking is the fact that the Obama admin. quietly set a date for the elimination of the hyribd car tax credit…NEXT MONTH.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:53 pm
“Most scientists argue that the gravest concerns is the carbon emissions from cars, not energy producing plants or manufacturing plants.”
Huh? Where do you get that? Are you claiming that vehicle emissions are of a different, and more damaging kind, or just that there is more of it?
I’m not sure either what your bottom line point is. You say you accept that there is climate change, but then you try to brush it off as if the only thing you are agreeing to is that climate is not static. Do you accept the fact that carbon dioxide is a gas with greenhouse effects? DO you accept the fact that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is growing rapidly? Do you have some argument with the science of the greenhouse effect, disputing that temperatures rise as a result? Do you accept the empirical data of temperature change over the last century? Or do you accept all this but have some different solution, other than cap and trade?
Why do you care anything about hybrids if there is nothing to worry about in the first place? Or is that misunderstanding your position?
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Tano, why are you so angry? You seem angry. For all I’m concerned, you should be jumping up and down and running around in circles. Your man is office for 47 more months and you have a congress that has given Obama Carte blanche on everything. Calm down.
To answer your questions, because of the quantity of various vehicles on the roads, the impact that the emissions from cars put into the air is QUANTITATIVELY more damaging, not inherently worse.
You see, I accept the fact that we can do better and we can have cleaner air. Clear air is a nice thing to have. I also accept that since the debate about global “climate change” has started, it’s been over-blown and pushed hard by various media outlets as a something more significant than it is. There is no doubt that carbon emissions from buildings, cars, etc is bad. My analysis is that just because it’s bad, doesn’t mean it’s very bad and doesn’t mean we should effectuate drastic change on our economic system to curtail it. There are other ways, less stringent, less pressing, that it could be done. I lived in Milano for a long time. In Milano (in Italy), Italy mandated that no cars unless emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, or Blue-Diesel cars were permitted into the inner most part of the city. Of course, most on this website would jump up and down and say, that’s horrible, blah blah. I would argue, it’s good because in a condensed small area, people that needed to drive cars in the city, bought blue-diesel cars. So, what happened was people bought new cars, car companies produced new goods at a faster rate, and the environment saw a net benefit. That’s an example of how the environment can be improved without excessive new restrictions on corporations.
PS…read the hyperlinks in the article. There are many, all with very obvious information about emissions, temperature changes, potential job losses, from liberal and conservative scholars, etc…….
Have a nice day.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:20 pm
This is good news Anthony, thanks for the article.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Anthony,
You misinterpret my tone. I am not angry at you. Why should I be? I was just asking you to clarify what you are saying.
I did follow your links – most are from highly biased industry sources.
The issue of greatest seriousness is not the type of basic pollution that you seem to be discussing. It is that greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere (this is indisputable), these gases by their nature cause temperature increases (i havent seen anyone argue against that basic science), and that this will lead to serious effects.
Now you can try to argue with the predictive models, claiming that there is some unaccounted-for factor, but no one has done that convincingly (and no my friends, nobody has forgotten to input solar dynamics into the models). Or you can accept the gravity of the situation and argue that we should focus on dealing with the consequences rather than preventing them from happening (the position taken by Lomborg – the “skeptical environmentalist”).
But I dont see how you can simply argue that the cost of dealing with the situation is too expensive. By any measure, the costs of a cap and trade system are tiny relative to the costs of doing nothing, if the predictions about consequences come true. So you really have to take a stand on the science and the predictions first. If you cant show why they are wrong, then the cost is simply going to have to be born, otherwise it would just be far worse.
You seem to be starting with the cost (too expensive), then arguing backwards – therefore I will choose to disbelieve that there is much of a problem. That seems to be the approach taken by much of the conservative business community – but it has a rather obvious flaw.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:04 pm
This is just another economy crumbler at the worst possible time.
March 3rd, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Nicely said, Micheal. It is nice to see someone who opposes Obama do so on the basis of solid research and plausible political/economic theory rather than bluster and hyperbole. I’m not a fan of this system and think it is primarily a smoke screen, so if people can get this one pulled out of Obama’s plan, I’m all for it. On the other hand, I think that the real solution is something you would hate even more — a pollution tax. Both on factories and on automobiles and on gas. The efficiencies produced by the motivation provided to people who want to avoid such a tax would be beneficial to the economy while also reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:10 pm
CO2 is not causing Global Warming; take the time to check the data. The whole thing is a complete scam to impose massive new energy taxes and control the way we live. Obama has a completely distorted view of cause and effect. His major concern is the redistribution of wealth worldwide, from those who produce to those who don’t. An energy tax is one way to do this. Wakeup America!
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Dave, I think basically right.
March 31st, 2009 at 8:25 pm
[...] of all let’s talk about how much this will cost the average American. From Anthony Fabiano: If a new program will initiated, the average American household would have to pay $800 to $1400 [...]