The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 H.R. 2454, better known as cap and trade, is due for a House vote this week.
The purpose of this cap and trade bill, is to reduce pollutants, by offering financial incentives, and penalties, to polluters, in order to reduce global warming.
Now, regardless of how one feels about the global warming debate, the idea of reducing pollutants is a good endeavor. I come from a pre-pollution-control world where eyes would burn, and it would hurt to breathe, and I can attest to the great success of smog control devices on our automobiles.
It’s been expensive. I’m sure that smog equipment on automobiles adds thousands of dollars to the price if a car, plus additional maintenance costs, and, of course, government imposed smog checks. But, it is has been worth it; the quality of my life has been better.
So, cap and trade, on it’s surface, seems like a great idea.
In twenty-five words, or more, the idea of cap and trade is this:
1) The government sets a cap on the amount of allowable pollution
2) Company A, a coal-fired power plant in Iowa, is purchases a permit from the government which allows it to emit 100 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2).
2) Company B, identical to Company A, also purchases a permit to emit 100 tons of CO2.
3) Company A invests money in new pollution control equipment, and reduces their CO2 emissions by 40%, or 40 tons; they now have a pollution credit of 40 tons.
4) Company B, on the other hand, is not able to reduce their emissions, and, in fact, their emissions are 140 tons, instead of 100 tons.
5) So Company B goes to Company A, and purchases 40 tons of emission credits from Company A, at a market price.
6) Company A is receiving a return on their investment, and Company is being
penalized for not investing in emission control equipment.
(It is not clear to me what the penalties are if a company exceeds their emission permits; I assume that there are heavy financial penalties; perhaps fines.)
It all sounds fairly simple, on it’s surface; it is a clever idea. But I don’t see how it reduces pollution. In my example, the net change is zero; pollution is neither increased, nor decreased.
In fairness, the government defined caps are supposed to be lowered as time goes on, and credits can be retired to never be used, again. So an environmentally conscience organization could purchase emission credits, and retire them, effectively reducing the pollution caps. But, the government could simply issue more pollution credits, effectively raising the caps.
In order to affect Global Warming, a cap and trade bill would need to be compatible with other programs throughout the world. A cap and trade market could, theoretically, decrease pollution on a worldwide basis. A high-polluter in the USA, could buy pollution credits from a low-polluting company in China, etc. It just seems like smoke, and mirrors, to me; I don’t see how a nuclear power plant in China will reduce pollution from a coal-fired power plant in Iowa.
I am not against the idea of controlling pollutants. My understanding is that major CO2 polluters, are coal-fired power plants. In the past, we’ve done a great job of removing visible pollutants; the soot is removed, and the smokestacks are clear; and we don’t hear about acid rain, any longer.
But, CO2 is invisible, and it is a pollutant; we cannot breathe CO2. So, it is not difficult for me to support the idea that we need to control the CO2 pollutants. The Earth is very big, but, still it is an enclosed bubble, and it would be illogical to believe that we, as humans, do not have some effect on that bubble. Again, I am from that era where smog hurt, and when we had smog alerts, and were cautioned not to play outside, etc, so it’s not a great stretch to believe that we can affect our environment on a global scale.
But cap and trade does nothing to reduce the pollutants. It would make an interesting board game, but it does not make sense in the real world. From what I can tell, all it does is bring significantly more tax money to the government, courtesy of the individual consumers.
Cap and trade is clearly a massive tax increase disguised as a solution to the so-called problem of Global Warming. There is nothing like a perceived crisis to
encourage taxpayers to open their wallets.
Our own government, at the State, and Federal level, reduced vehicle emissions by passing laws that required automobile manufacturers to solve the emissions problems. And they did, and the consumer paid the cost.
If we had tried to use cap and trade to control automobile emissions, there would be no change in the smog levels; our eyes would be burning worse than ever, and our breathing would be labored, and painful, and the price of our automobiles would be the same as they are, now, if not more. The only difference would be that some cars would pollute more, or less, than others.
It just seems like a boondoggle to me, because, in the first place, it’s based on the premise that somehow Global Warming is man-caused, and the further premise that man can mitigate it. It is absurd, and it has become too political to have any credibility.
Second, I still don’t see where there is a net decrease in pollution.
Third it requires worldwide cooperation at a level that is imaginary. Self-interest will always trump the interest of another nation. If the world were of one government, and static, and unchanging, it might make more sense, but we have an endless variety of governments, and laws, and ever increasing populations, with ever increasing energy demands, and when push comes to shove, no country will abrogate their obligations to their own citizens, in favor of those of another country. It’s just plain common sense.
Even if there were a general agreement between major countries, it would only take a handful of renegade countries to undo any gains in reducing pollutants.
Fourth, I just see it as a way for governments to tax their citizens, in the name of Global Warming.
If our intent were really to reduce CO2 emissions, we could simply tax dirty energy to the point that it will encourage the creation, and development of alternate forms of clean energy.
The taxpayers/consumers will foot the bill, as we always do, but at least the money won’t be wasted on a feel-good thesis that we are saving the world.
And that is just my opinion.
Spencer Holly,
www.angrycalifornian.com
===========================================
Other resources:
========================
========================
What is the cost of cap and trade:
Nancy Pelosi Schedules Household Energy Tax Vote this Week
===========================
===========================
