• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Today's Calamity: Senate Concerns on Cap and Trade Cannot Be Fixed

    Cap and Trade Calamities

    Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus made headlines this week for something other than healthcare. On October 27 Senator Baucus said he has “serious reservations” about the cap and trade bill, especially the increased near-term target of 20 percent carbon dioxide reduction below 2005 levels by 2020 – up from 17 percent in the passed House bill.

    No changes can be made within the cap and trade approach can alleviate his concerns. Changing the targeted emissions reductions for 2020 from 20 percent to 17 percent might reduce the near-tem economic impact, but the reduction targets from there on out mirror the Waxman-Markey bill. The steeper the reduction targets in subsequent years, the higher energy prices will have to go to meet those targets.

    The scariest numbers from The Heritage Foundation CDA analysis of Waxman-Markey were in 2035, when job losses reach 2.5 million, gasoline prices will rise by 58 percent ($1.38 more per gallon) and average household electric rates will increase by 90 percent. The Heritage model only goes out to the year 2035 but carbon dioxide reduction cuts are most stringent in 2050.


    This is just one of many concerns the Senate has with the cap and trade. In June of last year 10 Democrats sent a letter to Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator Harry Reid stating their concerns over a cap and trade bill, the biggest being that it contain costs and prevent harm to the U.S. economy.

    The Heritage Foundation analysis of Waxman-Markey found that implementing the bill would reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.4 trillion from 2012-2035. Even the Congressional Budget Office acknowledged that “such legislation would also reduce economic activity through a number of different channels.”

    Senators in coal producing states rightly have their own reservations. For instance, Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) said one of his top concerns was “a spike in energy prices” saying, “I don’t think we’re entirely there, for coal states.”

    And we’ll never get there for coal states. President Obama’s infamous line when it comes to cap in trade is that electricity prices will “necessarily skyrocket”, but his message on coal was just as alarming. Although the President did talk about the possibility of clean coal, he also said, “So, if somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.”

    So we’re going to tax cheap, reliable energy (costs that will be passed on to the consumers) to invest in expensive, inefficient energy sources that cannot survive without government support.

    Despite Boxer’s repeated attempts to promote cap and trade as a jobs bill, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) still has concerns: “My message over all is that for us to support what needs to be done in addressing global warming we need to demonstrate that, in fact, jobs are created.”

    They won’t be; they will be destroyed. It’s important to stress that of the organizations that modeled cap and trade, not one scenario, including the EPA’s after generous assumptions, projected a net increase in income or employment from cap and trade. The entire debate was over the magnitude of income, consumption and job losses.

    The Senate has a lot of problems with cap and trade. But there aren’t any solutions.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to Today's Calamity: Senate Concerns on Cap and Trade Cannot Be Fixed

    1. Earl, Queens, NY says:

      To all Republicans: Just say NO to the environmentalist wackos!! IMO this one area in which the GOP is still weak. Many are wising up to the fact that they need to get back to conservative principles to win back control and save America in 2010 and 2012 – i.e., stop profligate spending and earmarks, and cut taxes and regulations to cure the recession and grow the economy. But many in the GOP are wimps when it comes to the greatest threat to America and its liberty and economy – the enviro-statists. And in some cases they go along with this fringe group. It’s not about clean air or water. It’s about destroying America by, i.e., protecting kangaroo rats, cutting off water to protect fish; not to mention the high price of Cap & Trade (the biggest tax hike ever with no benefits!!) to deal with the global warming hoax!! Republicans need to stand up, and expose the radical anti-American and anti-capitalist agenda of this fringe group, and hopefully flush out this fringe movement.

    2. I. M. Speakings, Ri says:

      The cuts in carbon dioxide emissions in the Cap and Trade bill will not be enough to stem the tide of carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere. Caps and carbon taxes are punative and must be enforced. An alternative idea is to find good uses for carbon dioxide emissions, such as increasing growth of crops by air enrichment, and tranformation into products that can be sold. This priciple hold true for other emissions and waste as well. By puttting emissions to productive uses we can create an economic stimulus and save the cost that comes with underground sequestration. In order to stem the tide of carbon dioxide increase we must adopt a zero net carbon emissions policy. We must do this whether the rest of the world follows or not by doing so we will know that the United States of America has done all it can to fight global warming. Indeed Costa Rica, Norway, Iceland,and New Zealand have already pledged to achieve zero net carbon emissions. Now is the time for the United States of America to shun half measures and set an example for the whole wide world by adopting, implementing, and achieving a zero net carbon emissions policy as quickly as possible, right here, right now.

    3. shadowsryder, Chesap says:

      Carbon tax on soft drinks is not yet mentioned.

      Hypocrites. The fizz is carbon dioxide being released into the air. The 'tingle of the tongue' is carbonic acid, carbon dioxide dissolved in water. All across the continent, carbon dioxide in containers is delivered to businesses where it is injected into water, mixed with syrups, and given to people to drink… even children. See http://www.nuco2.com Ban artifically carbonated beverages or tax them. The deficit could be helped. Five cents per ounce…. many millions of dollars a day.

    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.