Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 06/21/2008 5:44:44 AM PDT by Kaslin
Thankfully, cap and trade – aka the Warner-Lieberman “America's Climate Security Act of 2007” – suffered a quick death in the Senate this year. Cap and trade is an inferior, anti-growth, environmental policy that imposes significant costs on our economy and people’s lives. Cap and trade allows Congress to pass a huge tax increase while never formally voting to do so. The large tax increase will diminish our overall economic vitality and reduce everyone’s welfare.
Unfortunately, like a horror movie villain that keeps rising from the dead, the death of cap and trade is only temporary because cap and trade regulation offers a convenient solution for the political class. Like most political solutions the promise of all benefits and no costs is too good to be true.
While we are still in the shadow of “cap and trade’s death”, it is worthwhile to evaluate the 4 major fallacies proponents of cap and trade perpetuate in order to set the record straight.
Fallacy #1: Cap and Trade is a free market solution: If implemented, cap and trade would set an aggregate limit (a cap) to the amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) industries could emit. If a holder of GHG emission rights emits GHGs below his allocation level, he could sell some of his rights to someone who is above his emission limit. The trading of emission credits serves as the basis that the regulation is a free market solution.
Cap and trade regulations are not a free market solution – it is just the opposite. Cap and trade gives the government the right to determine the total amount of GHGs emitted by the U.S economy. Over 86% of our current energy needs are provided by GHG emitting sources; and, our reliance on these sources (e.g. oil and coal) will continue for the foreseeable future.
Giving the government the power to set total GHG emissions is giving the government the power to determine the economy’s use of energy. Since energy use is central to our entire free market economy cap and trade takes a central aspect of our free market economy and brings it under direct control of the government.
Fallacy #2: Cap and Trade provides incentives for alternative energy technologies: The incentives to create alternative energy technologies exist with or without cap and trade regulation. These incentives vary from the economic (profit) to the non-economic (values). Cap and trade does not change the incentives. But, it can distort the process, and due to the law of unintended consequences, may even make the situation worse.
Take the ethanol case study. Whether it was for reasons of national security or global warming, the federal government decided to encourage ethanol production. The result has been disastrous. Ethanol’s benefit to the environment is now questionable, and the huge diversion of crops from “foods to fuels” is exacerbating a serious international food crisis. Proponents did not consider such effects when deciding to promote ethanol. Lack of foresight does not stop the law of unintended consequences, however.
Fallacy #3: Cap and Trade provides resources to invest in alternative energy technologies: In order to implement a cap and trade regulation, the rights to emit GHGs must be distributed. These rights can be given away for free by the government, in which the beneficiaries receive a very valuable gift from the government. Or, the rights can be sold to the GHG emitters, typically through auction. If the government auctions the right to emit GHG emissions, the public sector will receive a huge windfall of revenues estimated in the trillions of dollars. Plans to spend this money abound. Investing in alternative energy technologies is one of the oft-cited uses for the new found spending power.
Once again, the facts tell a different story. The ethanol disaster is not unique: history is replete with failed technology predictions. Hobbling the private sector by transferring a substantial amount of resources to the public sector will not foster technological innovation. Instead, it empowers the government to choose which prospective alternative energy technologies should be supported. We are then betting our energy future on the wisdom and knowledge of the energy scientists on Capitol Hill.
Global warming should not be used as an excuse to increase the size of government. The most assured means to obtain effective alternative energy technologies is to allow the private sector to continually experiment (and often fail) with different ideas.
Fallacy #4: Cap and Trade Regulation will generate economic growth: The final fallacy is, perhaps, attracting the most attention. Proponents claim, due to fallacies 1 – 3, that cap and trade will instantaneously create thousands of new green jobs. Our economy will flourish as we invent ourselves out of the current energy dilemma. The belief that we can impose a mandate on our economy to use less energy and, somehow, that economic growth will accelerate as a result is a fantasy, pure and simple.
Capitalism is a process of creative destruction – Henry Ford put some small automobile manufacturers out of business while he was revolutionizing the automobile industry and creating millions of new jobs on net. Unlike Henry Ford, cap and trade does not create anything. The incentives to create the alternative technologies already exist – as do investors who will willingly risk their money if they believe the project is viable. What cap and trade adds is a prohibition to use our current energy resources while these new technologies are being tested. Such a restriction is not growth enhancing.
As debunking the fallacies indicate, cap and trade regulation is bad public policy. For those interested in addressing global warming fears, there are more efficient means to do so that will also safeguard the economy. As for cap and trade, let’s hope it meets the same fate next year when it returns once again.
bttt
McCain supported Warner/Lieberman.
Do you have proof? If so then please do so
Carbon credits are intended to become the new common currency of the world. All of the eco-mumbo-jumbo is red herring material.
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
| Question: On the Motion (Motion to Instruct Sgt-At-Arms ) | |||
| Vote Number: | 143 | Vote Date: | June 4, 2008, 09:51 PM |
| Required For Majority: | 1/2 | Vote Result: | Motion Rejected |
| Measure Number: | S. 3036 (Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 ) | ||
| Measure Title: | A bill to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other purposes. | ||
| Vote Counts: | YEAs | 27 |
| NAYs | 28 | |
| Not Voting | 45 |
| Vote Summary | By Senator Name | By Vote Position | By Home State |
| Akaka (D-HI), Not Voting Alexander (R-TN), Not Voting Allard (R-CO), Nay Barrasso (R-WY), Nay Baucus (D-MT), Yea Bayh (D-IN), Not Voting Bennett (R-UT), Not Voting Biden (D-DE), Not Voting Bingaman (D-NM), Not Voting Bond (R-MO), Not Voting Boxer (D-CA), Yea Brown (D-OH), Yea Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Bunning (R-KY), Not Voting Burr (R-NC), Nay Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Cardin (D-MD), Not Voting Carper (D-DE), Not Voting Casey (D-PA), Yea Chambliss (R-GA), Nay Clinton (D-NY), Not Voting Coburn (R-OK), Nay Cochran (R-MS), Not Voting Coleman (R-MN), Nay Collins (R-ME), Nay Conrad (D-ND), Not Voting Corker (R-TN), Nay Cornyn (R-TX), Not Voting Craig (R-ID), Nay Crapo (R-ID), Not Voting DeMint (R-SC), Nay Dodd (D-CT), Yea Dole (R-NC), Nay |
Domenici (R-NM), Not Voting Dorgan (D-ND), Yea Durbin (D-IL), Yea Ensign (R-NV), Not Voting Enzi (R-WY), Nay Feingold (D-WI), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Not Voting Graham (R-SC), Nay Grassley (R-IA), Nay Gregg (R-NH), Not Voting Hagel (R-NE), Not Voting Harkin (D-IA), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Not Voting Hutchison (R-TX), Nay Inhofe (R-OK), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Not Voting Isakson (R-GA), Not Voting Johnson (D-SD), Yea Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting Kerry (D-MA), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Yea Kyl (R-AZ), Not Voting Landrieu (D-LA), Not Voting Lautenberg (D-NJ), Not Voting Leahy (D-VT), Yea Levin (D-MI), Yea Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Nay Martinez (R-FL), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting McCaskill (D-MO), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Nay |
Menendez (D-NJ), Not Voting Mikulski (D-MD), Not Voting Murkowski (R-AK), Nay Murray (D-WA), Not Voting Nelson (D-FL), Not Voting Nelson (D-NE), Yea Obama (D-IL), Not Voting Pryor (D-AR), Yea Reed (D-RI), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Not Voting Salazar (D-CO), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea Sessions (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Not Voting Smith (R-OR), Not Voting Snowe (R-ME), Nay Specter (R-PA), Not Voting Stabenow (D-MI), Not Voting Stevens (R-AK), Not Voting Sununu (R-NH), Nay Tester (D-MT), Yea Thune (R-SD), Nay Vitter (R-LA), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay Warner (R-VA), Nay Webb (D-VA), Not Voting Whitehouse (D-RI), Not Voting Wicker (R-MS), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Not Voting |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2028730/posts
There are a few FR threads that deal with this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002521.html
Sorry, don't know how to make these into links you can just click on.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_060408/content/01125108.guest.html
I don’t care how many links you post. You are ignoring the fact which I posted in #7. To make it clear to you. John McCain didn’t vote on it along with 44 other Senators. It didn’t pass
All I said was he supported it, which he does. It’s not my fault that he couldn’t be bothered to do his job and actually show up to vote for something.
Gee, 44 other senators didn’t vote on it and Warner voted no. *rme*
Gee, 44 other senators didn’t vote on it and Warner voted no. *rme*
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.