• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Some on Left Join Fight to Expose the Lie that is Cap and Trade

    This past summer when the Senate debated the Lieberman-Warner cap and trade plan, conservatives (and libertarians) were alone in fighting to expose the lie that cap and trade is anything other than a massive energy tax that can only harm our economy. Now, more and more on the left are wising up and taking a more honest approach. Yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, Ralph Nader and Toby Heaps wrote:

    Cap-and-traders assume, without much justification, that one country can put a price on carbon emissions while another doesn’t without affecting trade or investment decisions. This is a bad assumption, given false comfort by the Montreal Protocol treaty, which took this approach to successfully rein in ozone-depleting gases. Chlorofluorocarbons are not pervasive like greenhouse gases (GHGs); nor was the economy of 1987 hyperglobalized like ours today.

    Good intentions to limit big polluters in some countries but not others will turn any meaningful cap into Swiss cheese. It can be avoided by relocating existing and new production of various kinds of CO2-emitting industries to jurisdictions with no or virtually no limits. This is known as carbon leakage, and it leads to trade anarchy.

    How? The most advanced piece of climate legislation at the moment, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, contains provisions for retaliatory action to be taken against imports from carbon free-riding nations. Married with the current economic malaise, the temptation to slide into a righteous but runaway environmental protectionism — which Washington’s K Street lobbyists would be only too happy to grease — would almost certainly lead to a collapse of the multilateral trading system.

    Even global warming icon James Hansen has joined the cap and trade truth bandwagon. In his letter to Obama, Hansen writes:

    A tax should be called a tax. The public can understand this and will accept a tax if it is clearly explained and if 100 percent of the money is returned to the public. Not one dime should go to Washington for politicians to pick winners. No lobbyists need be employed.

    Beware of alternative approaches, such as ‘percent emission reduction goals’ and ‘cap and trade’. These are subterfuges designed to allow business-as-usual to continue, under a pretense of action, a greenwashing. Hordes of lobbyists will argue for these approaches, which assure their continued employment. The ineffectiveness of ‘goals’ and ‘caps’ is made blatantly obvious by the fact that the countries promoting them are planning to build more coal-fired power plants.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    9 Responses to Some on Left Join Fight to Expose the Lie that is Cap and Trade

    1. Pingback: Some on Left Join Fight to Expose the Lie that is Cap and Trade « Conservative Thoughts and Profundity

    2. R. Pettingill, Annap says:

      CAP & TRADE will only lead to a more bloated government with resultant increase in taxation and very minimal impact of gloable warming.

      Modifying tax policy with quicker write off's of much more efficient equipment will foster private production which will enhance our economy and it will have a significantly greater impact on the economy and the enviornment.

      Forty +/- years ago the Energy Department evolved with the mission of energy independence when our nations import of oil was relatively insignificant. Today Oil Imports have created an economic mess of our economy while the bloated Energy Department has a budget of $25,000,000,000 (That's Billions of Dollars).

      Big Government Craziness is not the answer. Common sense is missing from the discussion of global warming.

    3. Thomas Gray South Ca says:

      New jobs = pollution,

      Carbon caps are an idea that should not be allowed to start becouse the root of this idea global warming is by my study a lie.

      the truth is an on going climate change that I have read understandable reports from various institutions. The experament here is a very expensive effort to change the climate and to take control of the allowed amounts of greenhouse gases emissions as a way to do the experament.

      For all the trouble this is going to cause as it appears the new pres supports the lie I have not read one report on what this effort is going to do, we can deal with the weather lets just forget all three of these ideas and go and try to help with the jobless situation.

      doc 2 of 5, new jobs = pollution. Thomas Gray.

    4. Thomas Gray South Ca says:

      The claim of “consensus” rests almost entirely on an inaccurate and now-outdated single-page comment in the journal Science entitled The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (Oreskes, 2004).

      In this less than impressive “head-count” essay, Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science with no qualifications in climatology, defined the “consensus” in a very limited sense, quoting as follows from IPCC (2001) –

      “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations

      COMMENT,, Human activities,, two facts and one opinion the opinion I disagree as the first fact is lacking another fact,, Human activities … are modifying the concentration AND COMBINATION of unnatural and natural atmospheric constituents. It is agreed by " consensus" we are coming out of an ice age so the observed warming over the last 50 years is exactly what was supposed to happen until we begin to enter the next ice age. A percentage of influence " must" be admitted by ALL these facts and not just the contributions of man and it is likely mans contributions are very small.

      There is no scientific consensus on how much the earth has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have had or will have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora, and fauna will respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps – if any – we should take; whether (if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even whether we should take any steps at all.

      Campaigners for climate alarm state or imply that there is a scientific consensus on all of these things, when in fact there is none.

      Let us take just one example. The UN’s latest report on climate change, which is claimed as representing and summarizing the state of the scientific “consensus” insofar as there is one, says that the total contribution of ice-melt from Greenland and Antarctica to the rise in sea level over the whole of the coming century will not be the 20 feet illustrated by Al Gore in his movie, but just 2 inches. Gore’s film does not represent the “consensus” at all. Indeed, he exaggerates the supposed effects of ice-melt by some 12,000 per cent. The UN, on the other hand, estimates the probability that humankind has had any influence on sea level at little better than 50:50.

    5. Claire Solt PhD says:

      Have you seen algore's new ads under Repower America? He now claims that carbon is killing the planet. Sure it wasn't that fever?

    6. Don in Pennsylvania says:

      The article should have explained "cap and trade" a little better, for example:

      Company "A" emits 500 tons of GHG's

      Company "B" emits 100 tons of GHG's

      The cap is 300 ton's of GHG's

      Company "B" sells 200 credits to Company "A", through a Carbon Trading Company.

      Now both companies are "legal".

      What has transpired?

      Company "A" spent extra money

      Company "B" made extra money

      The carbon trading company(like Al Gore's) made money on the sale of the credits.

      Net GHG reduction…..absolute 0

      Pretty cool scam. LOL

    7. JeffT says:

      When all of this c(l)ap-trap backfires and we all freeze to death, will the perps be available for execution? This is the biggest fraud I've seen in my lifetime. People who don't know their axx from a hole-in-the-ground are going to "fix" the climate to their specifications. Just who are these "experts?" The U.N. has shown to be a complete boondoggle that is truly "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." And we are placing the fate of the World in their dirty hands? Other than UNICEF, what has the U.N. ever done right?

    8. Thomas Gray South Ca says:

      To Claire Solt PhD,

      No I haven't seen Mr Gores new add but lets not confuse GLOBAL WARMING with ENERGY TAX, My understanding is the idea of carbon caps came from the ENRON energy company and Mr gore has made some business moves to gain income if his carbon cap plan is implemented, the greens want carbon caps so they are both pushing the GLOBAL WARMING LIE. This is a very complicated problem to address becouse the greens have tons of money and a big lobby in Washington and are currently dictating the energy policy for the entire U.S.A.

    9. Fernao de Magalhaes, says:

      How can carbon be killing the planet when it is the dominate element on earth?

      Global warming and cooling have been taking place since there was a "globe".

      If I were a large corporation and the US Govt. started to implement this farce called "Cap and Trade", I would move my operations offshore.

      I am not a Ph.D. from Harvard or Yale, and if I can figure this out, then I am sure other corporate execs can too.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×