By E. Thomas McClanahan, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
Democrats say the cap-and-trade bill passed by the House last week will accelerate the transition to an energy-efficient economy. Loads of new “green” jobs will be created in the process.
President Barack Obama says this will be a “driver of economic growth.”
Speaker Nancy Pelosi boiled it down even more: “Remember these four words for what this legislation means: jobs, jobs, jobs and jobs. Let’s vote for jobs.”
We pause now for a tactful silence. No need to jeer. The argument is silly on its face, although one might reasonably wonder how anyone could seriously believe this bilge.
What’s more interesting is the change in approach. Up to now, the usual rationale for a carbon cap is that, yes, it would involve economic pain, but we have to understand that the short-term costs would be far less than the dire, long-term consequences of doing nothing about global warming.
Now we’re told there won’t be any economic pain at all. Obviously, the two arguments are contradictory. In fact, Obama’s latest tack is refuted by statements he made earlier this year, when he remarked that under his cap-and-trade plan, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
How do you end up with a vibrant economy and lots of net job creation by forcing people to pay higher energy prices? Well, you don’t, and that’s why this measure is one of the biggest threats to the U.S. economy ever to emerge on Capitol Hill.
The legislation, which now goes to the Senate, would impose an overall limit on emissions of greenhouse gases. Industries would then buy and sell permits to emit carbon. Over time, the cap would become more restrictive, reducing CO2 emissions.
The whole purpose of the bill is to force people to pay more for energy. That won’t spur economic growth. It will retard it, by slowing the growth of consumer spending, which makes up the greatest share of the gross domestic product. The result will be lower output and fewer jobs.
The notion that cap-and-trade will do little harm came from a recent Congressional Budget Office analysis that pegged the bill’s annual cost in 2020 at a mere $175 for the average family. (Lower-income households would get a rebate reducing their energy costs by $40.)
The Heritage Foundation pointed out that incredibly the CBO study failed to include in its calculations the overall effect on economic growth. The bill would not only make energy prices go up, but — because energy costs raise production costs generally — it would make the prices of almost everything else rise as well.
Cap-and-trade would be a crippling, self-inflicted wound. Not only that, it would be futile: Without the cooperation of rapidly industrializing economies such as India and China — which say they have no intention of impeding their growth with carbon caps — anything the United States does will have little effect on overall global emissions.
Nor is it likely to work as its authors intend.
Like any commodity, the price of carbon permits will fluctuate, and those price movements could be violent. That will add even more uncertainty to the business of energy production.
In Europe, the recession has caused the price of carbon permits to plummet, lowering permit costs and the cost of using fossil fuels. That has undercut the competitiveness of solar, wind and other new technologies aimed at boosting conservation.
The House barely passed cap and trade — the vote was 219-212. The bill’s prospects in the Senate, fortunately, are grim because the same political dynamic that worked in the House won’t apply in the Senate.
As Jay Cost points out at the Real Clear Politics site, the New York and California delegations provided 26 percent of the support for cap and trade in the House. But in the Senate, those states together make up only 4 percent of the membership.
Thanks to the Senate’s rules, the measure will need at least 60 votes. If Republicans hang together and peel off a few Democrats, which seems likely, they can stop the bill dead in its tracks. For the sake of the economy’s health, they had better succeed.
To reach E. Thomas McClanahan, call 816-234-4480 or send e-mail to mcclanahan@kcstar.com
Delicious
Digg
tiffany jewellery
MoreTiffany is a famous tiffany jewelry Shop which sell directly Tiffany Rings, Earrings, Necklaces, Pendants, Bracelets, Bangles, Accessories.
Tiffanyline is a discount tiffany jewellery online store, everybody can afford tiffany jewellery as a memorable jewelry gift.
Save up to 60% on affordable cheap tiffany jewelry, beautiful discount tiffany rings, tiffany necklaces,tiffany Pendants, tiffany earrings and tiffany Bracelets.
Discounted tiffany
Sale Outlet provides hundreds of designer Tiffany Ring, necklaces and other jewelry in wholesale price. Tiffany specializes in.
ugg boots
Good ! I like it ! Welcome to read following news: ugg boots,Nike dunk sb,discount ugg boots, uggs ,nike dunk low,ugg boots sale,UGG Bailey Button boots,new nike sb,UGG Classic short boots,UGG Nightfall boots,cheap nike dunks,UGG Classic tall boots.
Still no Answer from flop...
.
What? Huh?
I don't hear YOU saying anything. Squawk, squawk, Interface want a cracker? Just parroting things of others.
Plus, well done twas_was for his response. So much for "deaf ears", Interface.
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/5023#comment-29063
Harold
Wind power is proven and on the ground now. Solar is useful in specialized applications. Nuclear has one and one only fatal flaw: we still don't know what to do with the residue. And of course we've only scratched the surface in conservation--my electric bill, AFTER rate hikes, is 60% of what it was three years ago, changing only to a heat pump and CFLs. So we chip at the total--implement wind power, push for better collector technology on solar, and for God's sake come up with a way to turn mildly radioactive waste into lumps of inert slag.
Now, if we insist on continuing with coal, we take the cheap short-term solution and push the associated long-term costs onto the next generation. Why? When did conservation become a liberal policy?
Well put, but as you can see, it falls upon deaf ears.
Old Enough
Yes when one says no way, the ones with the ideas come forward and succeed. Kind of my point. Since you want to go back in time lets look at something else, lead in gas.
The EPA scientists said they had the solution, UTBE. Problem, the side effect of that additive, benzine. Wait that's more toxic than lead...but they have come up with another replacement additive now, I'm sure there won't be any problems.
Perhaps you're too young to remember
In the early 1970's representatives of Ford, General Motors and Chrysler went before Congress to testify on implementation of emissions controls for automobiles. They presented elaborate scenarios of the death and destruction that fiddling with the status quo would bring. In particular, they jointly and severally "proved" that although emissions controls could possibly be made to work on tiny little four-cylinder engines, those were unsuitable for the large six-passenger cars the American consumer demanded, and the public would bankrupt Detroit if the automakers didn't give them what they wanted.
Naturally, Toyota, Nissan (Datsun at the time) and Honda then showed working models of small V-8's that met the emissions standards.
If we play Detroit and continue to contend that the heat-generating activities of six billion (and rising) people are trivial in the grand scheme of things, and that we cannot afford to do anything but what we did twenty years ago, we will have our lunch eaten by the rest of the world. If the Republican Party continues to chant, "Drill, baby, drill!" at its next nominating convention, the Republican Party will continue its spiral towards oblivion. It's time to grow up.
Replacement of coal problems
The current power grid for the US is a variable usage model with no energy storage. This is why coal and nuclear are the best option, you can dynamically increase and decrease as needed. For wind to work you would need a backup for when the wind is not blowing or when demand is to high. Also you would need a way to bleed the extra power if usage is down. With some more intellegent switching some of these issues could be managed but that would require replacing the grid.
You point out one of the big problems with solar, it is very inefficient at this time. In my opinion cap and trade is an unecessary disaster. Plenty of research is going into resolving the issues above, as well as clean coal technology (mabey cleaner would be better) to help fill in the void.
The environment is not just a liberal issue, overreaction to the environment is a liberal montra. Technology is advancing as is conservation by individuals. The sky is not falling.
Wow - a liberal who wants to talk about it!
we take the cheap short-term solution and push the associated long-term costs onto the next generation
.
That's assuming there's a climate change problem - which there isn't.
.
Conservation is not the issue HRW. Everyone is into conservation. The issue is that our midwest electric generating companies have invested hundreds of billions of dollars into coal-fired generating plants. What happens to those companies? If they are able to pass the additional tax on to the consumers, do we really know the amount? What about the commercial users of electricity? What happens to the price of their products and services?
.
And since India & China (and others) will not be doing the same, what happens to our jobs?
.
All of this because Al Gore and a bunch of chicken-little hand-picked scientists think that CO2 causes global warming. And the scientists that think otherwise are discounted to oblivion. Don't you think that if they are going to enact such legislation they should answer some of the questions?
And since we've seen Obama's 10-year budget, I don't think he cares much about pushing long-term costs to the next generation.
I'm afraid that's a false dichotomy
Posing the question as finding an alternative to coal-fired plants implies that the answer involves a 1:1 replacement of coal plants. That's not been proposed even as a goal by anyone.
Wind power is proven and on the ground now. Solar is useful in specialized applications. Nuclear has one and one only fatal flaw: we still don't know what to do with the residue. And of course we've only scratched the surface in conservation--my electric bill, AFTER rate hikes, is 60% of what it was three years ago, changing only to a heat pump and CFLs. So we chip at the total--implement wind power, push for better collector technology on solar, and for God's sake come up with a way to turn mildly radioactive waste into lumps of inert slag.
Now, if we insist on continuing with coal, we take the cheap short-term solution and push the associated long-term costs onto the next generation. Why? When did conservation become a liberal policy?