Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly stated that Cap and Trade will be a priority for the 111th Congress. Embraced some years ago in Europe and a few other countries, cap and trade creates an artificial market for various industries to buy, sell, and trade allowances that permit a certain amount of carbon output. It has long been on the wish list for American liberals and extremist environmentalists.
And with Democrats now in control of Congress and the White House, pssage of this monstrosity is almost a certainy. In fact, in the 2010 White House budget, President Barack Obama calls for a sweeping cap and trade program that would raise $646 billion in new revenues.
Here are FreedomWorks’ Top 10 reasons why they shouldn’t…
1. It will raise energy costs: While different nuanced approaches continue to surface, any analysis of any cap and trade scheme comes to the same conclusion; energy costs will go up. The latest serious attempt to enact cap and trade in the United States, America’s Climate Security Act of 2007 sponsored by Sens.Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA), serves as a good example. An analysis of this legislation cited during a Senate hearing held by the Committee on Environment and Public Works estimated the costs to the average American household would be between $800 and $1,300 by 2015, and then increasing to $1,500 to $2,500 by 2050.
2. It doesn’t help the environment: If energy costs are going to go up for Americans, shouldn’t there be significant environmental benefit and progress towards reversing climate change?
You would think so. But even if the most aggressive of cap and trade schemes were properly adhered to, scientists that both advocate and oppose a cap and trade program widely agree that the maximum drop to the earth’s temperature would be no more than 0.07 degrees Celsius by the year 2050.
To give some sense of just how negligible this decrease would be, we cannot even estimate the absolute mean surface temperature of the earth within 0.07. What’s worse is that cap and trade actually provides incentives to emit more carbon, not less.
An article by the Christian Science Monitor explains: “By turning carbon emissions into commodities that can be bought and sold, cap-and-trade policies could remove the stigma from producing such emissions.”
In other words, if industries understand they are working within a legal framework when they output carbon, the public pressure for them to cut down is weakened.
Evidence of this can be seen in Europe where most countries have seen carbon emissions go up, even though the European Union has had a cap and trade regime in place since 2005.