• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Kerry-Lieberman-Graham-Boxer-Waxman-Markey

    Yesterday, Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) unveiled an outline of their cap-and-trade proposal. Interestingly, their version of a national tax on American energy is hard to distinguish from earlier proposals such as the House-passed Waxman-Markey or the Senate committee-passed Boxer-Kerry.

    All of these proposals have one thing in common: they hurt the economy. However, the Senators Kerry, Lieberman and Graham take great care in their 5-page document to detail the benefits of their proposal, and implicitly suggest why it is superior to each. Let’s debunk the major claims.

    Claim: Better jobs, more manufacturing jobs, cleaner air.

    A Heritage analysis of Waxman-Markey found that net job losses in 2012 could approach 1.9 million. The net manufacturing employment decreases by nearly 400,000 between 2012 and 2035, including hitting a high of 1.38 million lost jobs in 2035. Raising the cost of energy is bound to create a worse job climate, not a better one. Other organizations agree. Specifically, the Brooking Institute modeled a general cap and trade system and found that GDP in the United States would be lower by 2.5 percent in 2050, and unemployment would be 0.5 percent higher (1.7 million fewer jobs) in the first decade below the baseline or without cap and trade. The total tax revenue generated by 2050 would be $9 trillion. Even worse, there would be no environmental benefit. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson acknowledged, “U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels.”

    Claim: Securing energy independence.

    The need to secure “energy independence” and “ending our addiction to foreign oil” is a commonly made claim by politicians on the left and the right, but achieving energy independence is not a cause for concern nor should it be a driver for a cap and trade system. Cap and trade will not make us more energy independent by pumping billions of dollars into subsidies for wind, solar and other renewable energy sources because even after decades of handouts they have not been able to compete with more traditional, reliable energy sources. There is no low cost alternative for fossil fuels or a way we can transform our energy sector overnight without paying a hefty price. Adding provisions that subsidize nuclear plants that won’t be built given the current status quo or support coal and drilling measures that won’t occur because the bill’s other provisions will force it to be costly do not change the fact that this bill is an economic disaster. Attempting to achieve energy independence costs the economy more than just higher energy prices by diverting resources from more valuable uses to less valuable ones.

    Claim: Creating regulatory predictability.

    The Senators said, “Monday’s endangerment finding by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) underscores the importance of Congressional action to address greenhouse gas emissions before the EPA moves unilaterally.” Perhaps they missed Jackson’s statement on Wednesday in Copenhagen. She said, “This is not an ‘either-or’ moment. It’s a ‘both-and’ moment.” In other words, the Obama Administration does not want cap-and-trade to preempt their regulatory authority over the entire economy. Regulatory certainty is a good thing but not when it piles regulation on top of regulation that will make it harder for businesses to compete with businesses in other countries that do not face similar carbon constraints.

    Claim: Protecting consumers.

    Neither cap and trade nor any of its variations can protect consumers. The whole reason for a cap and trade system is to drive up energy prices high enough in order for people to use less. Despite claims that consumers will eventually save money on utility bills, the net effect is that consumers still pay more for energy and income and savings will fall. Proponents of cap and trade legislation say that rebating allowance revenue from the carbon caps to the consumers will offset the higher energy costs. Never mind the fact that the Waxman-Markey bill hands much of the money to businesses, whether the rebate checks would offset the rise in energy costs remains to be seen. But this scenario is highly unlikely to help most Americans. As carbon prices rise, so do the rebate checks, but so do the energy prices consumers must pay. Further, rebates or not, the higher energy prices would reduce economic activity by forcing businesses to cut costs elsewhere, possibly by reducing their workforce, and thus doing damage that no check would cover.

    The bottom line: Adding a new Member of Congress or two to sponsor cap and trade legislation doesn’t change the outcome. This is not a jobs bill, nor is it an economic stimulus or a pollution reduction bill. It’s a net jobs destroyer that will cost American consumers in terms of higher energy prices and lost income for years to come. And the public isn’t buying it no matter how it’s sold.

    Nick Loris co-authored this post.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    10 Responses to Kerry-Lieberman-Graham-Boxer-Waxman-Markey

    1. JOHN says:

      Are these people totally clueless about the controversy floating around about the scam? Stop trying to destroy the economy of the US.

    2. Colin, US says:

      Seems like ole' Lindsay needs to get 'primaried'

    3. Pingback: PA Pundits - International

    4. Jay says:

      Good Lord, just once could they just simply DO NOTHING? Good ol' Graham, thanks buddy. You're really showing us how you're trying to get along with the tyrannical left. The voters are highly, highly angry with you. Like you care though. You're one of them that's why. I cannot wait until you are voted out.

    5. Pingback: Coaches Hot Seat Blog » 5 Great Players and Only 1 Winner of the Heisman Trophy – Congratulations to Mark Ingram – College Bowl Payouts Don’t Always Add Up – Sadly, Nothing New With the Real Reality of Bowl Math – CHS F

    6. Stirling, Huntingdon says:

      "There is no global warming," so this bill should never see the light of day. Those who want this bill don't or won't recognize the difference bettween a political PR Ponzi scheme and reality. You can't mortgage people's financial lives to pay for something that may or may not happen in the future. It's all "best guess" at this point as to what will happen in the future with the climate. But you can tell financially what the imediate affects will be.

    7. Truth Be Told says:

      Let's talk about real issues and have transparency. Not use cover-up by pretending to care about the environment and use more legislation to tax the heck out of citizens all in the name of a supposed good cause.

    8. Stas Peterson says:

      Increasingly the recent, scientific evidence of the 21st century is that the whole CO2 sky-is-falling idea, is wrong.

      That is why Climategate happened.

      They would not have had to resort to all the nefarious lying, cheating, stealing, data destruction, character assassination and suppression of the evidence, if the scientific results were truly as bad as they say. It was because it increasingly appeared that there was no problem, that the AGW hypotheses were disproven, that they had to do so.

      Ask yourself the simple question. Why else LIE?

    9. Charlie, Ohio says:

      I can see spending on getting a cleaner way to burn coal. Be more careful with oil and gas drilling. But to turn our backs on everything to build windmills and put up solar panels. Here in the midwest we go days with out sun.

      The same bunch doesn't want them out in the desert where it does shine. Shut down water that grows food because of some minno. We are doomed!

    10. Pingback: The Absurd Report » ‘Bait and Switch’ Drilling Plan or How Dumb do you think we are?

    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.