New columnist Alix Walker slams the negative impacts of cap and trade.
Alix Walker, Staff Writer - debut column
Ideology: Moderate Conservative | Writing From: Madison, Connecticut
The recent decision by the House of Representatives to administer a cap-and-trade tax on carbon emissions is an example of an ill conceived and poorly thought out bill from the house. First of all, before even getting into the policy of it all, it is inconceivable to me that a group of people can justifiably understand and make decisions on a fifteen hundred-page document in only a few days. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.
As great as this may sound in terms of an environmental standpoint in reducing green house gases, the economy will be the brunt of the tax. Cost estimates are as unreliable for climate legislation as they are for models predicting climate change. But, what is for sure about cap-and-trade is that this will be the biggest tax increase in history. This is a regressive tax that touches every family in the country after the fact that businesses will be forced to pay for their carbon outputs. This means a tax on something that has always been free and just adds another cost to calculate into the production of products we use every day. Does this sound like something we need in a time of economic crisis?
This document –besides from containing the original proposal – contains many pet projects of Nancy Pelosi and other members of congress, so she could get the votes in line. The most glaring of these is to extend the use of ethanol, when it has been scientifically proven to cause more harm to the environment by using more energy to manufacture than what is used for.
In my personal opinion, I cannot stress enough the importance of green technology and reducing green house gasses but we also must pay attention to the social consequences we pay when making decisions in policy. We need look no further than the many countries that have used the cap on carbon tax and discovered that the method had economic consequences. Good examples of this are the Dutch silicon carbide maker that calls itself the ‘greenest’ such plant in the world, but now can’t afford to run full-time; the French cement workers who fear they’re going to lose jobs to Morocco, which doesn’t have to meet the European guidelines; and the German homeowners who pay 25 percent more for electricity than they did before, even as their utility companies earn record profits.
It is also imperative to pay attention to the science of the issue. There is a growing doubt by many scientists that man made global warming is not the only scenario – the main argument that supports cap-and-trade. Politicians are using the ‘man-made warming excuse’ to blame humans for environmental changes in order to gain support to raise taxes. Taxes that they feel will be the best solution to curb the American image on environmental impact; if in fact humans are to blame. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push this bill through it will be because the majority of Democrats have come to their senses about the economic ramifications and we can start focusing on the real inconvenient truth, politicians are not scientists and environmental regulations, are more of what democratic politicians do best: taxation.
“It is inconceivable to me that a group of people can justifiably understand and make decisions on a fifteen hundred-page document in only a few days.”
Like the PATRIOT ACT (if only they had spent as much time reading the document as they had coming up with that stupid acronym — and yes, it’s ALL an acronym)?
Oops.
Funneling anger at the current Congress and Nancy Pelosi is understandable, particularly because the manner in which they are handling environmentalism is atrocious. However, constant lamentations about the ‘free-market’ and absolute refusal to consider green legislation is equally atrocious. The American market philosophy is in need of serious help, as if that is not already obvious by our current global financial crisis – a crisis which started in America.
There are few doubts that global warming is -if not entirely- partially caused by mankind’s pitiful example of resource management, but whether that is true or not, there is absolutely no doubt that our planet cannot sustain our current (and continually increasing) energy demands. Forcing companies to adapt to this reality is imperative and something that only the government and an informed public can do.
If companies could simply run ‘laissez-faire,’ women and children might still have 10-12 hour work days. We can only thank the implementation of government legislation and changes in societal norms that such cruel working-hours no longer exist in the United States and Europe. After all, they could be paid less and work longer and that saved quite a bundle on the labor costs curve.
The same goes for alternative energies: when the world’s petroleum resources run dry we better hope that our industries have made the right adaptations to survive. What will GDP look like then, if companies do not get their act together in time by themselves?
Furthermore, the EPA website has published information in regards to American Cap and Trade policies which have already been in place for years with successful reductions in industrial pollution. Also consider examples of Cap and Trade abroad. The system is not perfect by any means, but it is a good start with a precedent of effectively reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Additionally, if German electricity firms are earning record profits as you claim, then green technology must be a profitable industry. Regardless, Germany and Germans are verdammt proud of their wind farms and solar panels – even if they are expensive.
Noah,
Nowhere did Kathleen say whether or not she was for the Patriot Act, but is the basis of your comment “Republicans can do it, so we can, too?”
You don’t see any problem with passing a bill that hasn’t been read through?
I’m sorry, I just saw that Kathleen was the one who posted this to the site. I meant to say that Alix did not share any opinion regarding the Patriot Act.
Emily
Thanks for the comment. I hear what you’re saying but, If cap and trade were really successful than why are countries like Australia, Spain and the Netherlands abandoning this wonderful policy?
I never mentioned anything about energy. I think it would be a good idea for companies to switch to a energy efficient sources which is happening in many cases. Maybe even wind farms as the Germans do love so much…. Which, until anything like that is put in place, cap and trade would allow the use of ethanol as a source of energy!!! Please, tell me if that suits you?
As I think we all understand, CO2 emission do have to be curbed. And yes, this would work if the whole world took on this policy but, cap and trade is a tax and has greater negative effects on the economy, which is what my main argument is.
I wrote a long and eloquent rebuttal, which was subsequently deleted by an internet glitch. Thus, I shall concisely and vulgarly repeat my ideas.
I do not support ethanol.
Although I believe the free market would eventually respond to increasing demands for alternative energy, I do not believe that the adjustments would be made soon enough. This is partially due to the fact that unemployment and a stagnant economy are more tangible facts than resource exhaustion and global warming, which are abtract and based in the long-term. (This would also explain the recent actions of some countries in regards to their emissions limitations. Even Germany plans to permit higher pollution rates among car companies in order to prop up the industry.)
Ultimately, the government must act in the better interest of society, namely the regulation of industrial fossil fuel usage. If the transition to alternative energies is not made soon enough, then we jeopardize not only future industries, but our own expected standards of living.
For the long end of it, read my post.
I read your post and it was incomprehensible. You are contradicting yourself all over the place and it was very hard to read. You make no point.
Again, I support the regulation of fossil fuel usage and the use of alternative energies. I just don’t agree with the bill on cap and trade because it is not just a clean cap and trade on CO2 emissions, such as what you saw on the EPA website. However the use of fossil fuel over the next decade is imperative to our environment while we do more research on alternative energies. That said, cap and trade should be analyzed through other countries that have tried it. Some have abandoned it for a variety of economic reasons.
I’m glad you don’t like ethanol. I was worried for a moment.