- Share This Post
- submit
- 1
-
Sparkle (0)
I've followed the Waxman - Markey legislation, infamously known as cap-and-trade, for some time now, being that I've a factory-employed step-father, farmers in my family, a small business-owning husband, and, like all of us, I pay energy bills, the prices of which seem to increase annually.
The common misconception about conservatives is that we're not "pro-environment," which couldn't be further from the truth. I come from a farming family who steadfastly believe that what you take from the earth you return. I was raised knowing that it's a responsibility of humanity - even laid forth in Genesis - to be a good steward of the environment. This, perhaps is my biggest criticism of cap-and-trade (also Greenpeace's - I cannot believe they and I are agreeing on an issue, even in part), aside from my other concern: massive job loss.
This legislation, as explained by President Obama, proposes to curb carbon emissions and reduce energy usage by increasing the price of energy as the motivation to use less. There are several things wrong with this proposal, things which make it impossible for me to support:
1) The legislation approaches the problem of carbon emissions completely wrong. Back in the 90s, my uncle was one of several lobbyists who worked to push forth legislation that provided tax incentives to farmers who used organic means of cultivation. Instead of penalizing farmers, who were already struggling as it was, they would be rewarded for using less chemicals on the land. The plan worked - and has worked in states where implemented. Positive reinforcement works time and time again.
2) There are currently no incentives for businesses to reduce emissions, just penalties. This in turn positions the legislation and the party supporting it as being hostile to business, even if they really aren't. The bill also has no guarantees that these businesses won't simply relocate or ship jobs overseas as a way to get around purchasing credits or paying penalties; there is no guarantee that they won't emit less if they relocate - but it is certain that they won't curb their emissions if they do.
3) The bill proposes to shift dependence from coal - a resource of which we have an abundance, says the U.S. Department of Energy, which is why the energy bills of the United States are so much lower compared to other parts of the world - to energies which are not yet capable of sustaining the market demand, explained Dan Kish, Senior Vice-President for Policy at the Institute for Energy Research, on my radio show last week. It costs more to produce less energy with regards to win and solar. The mistake made by some against conservatives is that by stating this, we're speaking against wind and solar power which is factually incorrect. I would love to have various forms of energy. I would love to have a decreased dependence on foreign countries for oil, et al., I would love to create more jobs in the green industry- but not at the sake of denying scientific fact where energy is concerned. We are not yet at that point to make a major shift.
4) According to Kish, we have already cut emissions by 70-75% without this exponentially-increased governmental oversight. More can be done, sure, but we're working off the false premise that changes are not already underway. Instead of cracking down on companies and risking job losses with no environmental benefit, why not craft a bill to reward them for reductions? Kish and others have also noted that our newer coal plants burn incredibly cleaner than older plants; why not retrofit older plants and make them more efficent? The cost to do this would seem to be less than the proposed cost incurred by this legislation. Says Ben Lieberman, Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation:
For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 annually over that span. Electricity costs go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035. The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000.
But direct energy costs are only part of the consumer impact. Nearly everything goes up, since higher energy costs raise production costs. If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey, it works out to an average of
