• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Cap and Trade May be Dead, But Bad Energy Policy Isn’t

    With the election of Scott Brown and Senator Byron Dorgan’s recent comment that “it is unlikely that the Senate will turn next to a very complicated and very controversial subject of cap-and-trade, climate legislation,” the prospects for CO2 legislation are looking quite grim. But before American energy consumers can break out the champagne glasses, there are still economically threatening policies coming from the administration and Congress.

    Just because carbon dioxide reductions won’t be passed by elected officials doesn’t mean unelected ones can’t do it. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving forward with its own set of global warming regulations. The EPA’s endangerment finding, which took effect last week, gives the EPA authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs).

    The endangerment finding itself does not put into place any new regulations but does commence a long regulatory process beginning with finalizing plans to enforce greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for light-duty vehicles in March. The EPA could then move forward with regulating carbon emissions from stationary entities that would affect thousands of businesses and could eventually hit schools, restaurants, apartment complexes and churches. Congress could amend the CAA so that greenhouse gases like CO2, water vapor, etc., cannot be regulated under the act. But Congress could instead turn their attention to bad energy policy (See 2007 and 2005 for past examples).

    Sen. Dorgan told reporters that it’s time to turn the Senate’s attention to an energy bill rather as opposed to a climate bill. In truth, the likely proposed ideas in an energy bill will be backdoor global warming measures that only raise the cost of energy and do little, if anything to improve the environment. The probable policies included would focus on 1.) Stricter energy efficiency standards for vehicles and appliances 2.) A national renewable portfolio standard (RPS) that requires a certain percentage of our electricity be met through non-hydro renewable sources, and 3.) An “expanded financing for low-emissions energy projects.”

    Translation: Mandates, mandates and subsidies.

    Forcing companies to make more energy efficient products may sounds like a good idea since it will save the consumer electricity, but often times the trade off is a more expensive product that may not work as well. How much energy are you saving if you have to wash your clothes twice instead of once?

    When it comes RPS or RES (renewable electricity standards), Ben Lieberman writes that the only reason why a federally mandated RPS is needed in the first place is that that these alternatives are far too expensive to compete otherwise. In effect, Washington is forcing costlier energy options on the public. This is particularly true of certain states, especially those in the Southeast and parts of the Midwest, where the conditions are not conducive to wind power. And because renewable sources produce power in remote locations and the power must be brought to suburban and urban areas, there could be an additional $80 billion in costs for new transmission lines — not to mention the private property battles that will ensue.

    The subsidy-first mentality has taken over energy policy – not just with handouts and tax credits for renewable energy but also for sources like nuclear energy. Instead of implementing market-oriented policies that can create an economically viable nuclear industry, Congress is focusing on loan guarantees, worker tax credits and other handouts. The short-term ideas may build a few new reactors but will do more harm than good for nuclear energy’s sustainability.

    Although the chances of President Obama signing a cap and trade bill into law appear slim, there’s plenty of bad energy policy to worry about.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    9 Responses to Cap and Trade May be Dead, But Bad Energy Policy Isn’t

    1. Bobbie Jay says:

      So, what is the reason without speculation and no regard to man made global scamming, to consider any inefficient energy policies? Lawsuits if it comes to that?

    2. Pingback: PA Pundits - International

    3. Lloyd Scallan - New says:

      It's extreamly frustrating that there are so many of those that still push this lie

      of "man made global warming". Almost every day, more evidence (not speculation) is presented that prove "scientist and politicians" are using information that is either a flat out lie, or distorted to reflect the results they want,

      and not the true facts.

      Just recently we read the majorty of the temptature measuring devices that provide temp readings "lower" than expected, are not included and erased. In addition, the locations of these devices are deliberately placed in areas that will provide "higher" temps, and NOT true temps for that area.

      The bottom line is this "crap and tax" bill is based on deliberate distorted facts that these socialist use to justify their attempt to destroy our capitalist system and thus our country.

    4. Normca says:

      We do need an energy policy. The much hated George Bush and Dick Cheney came up with same in 2001 or 2. But like Obama's meeting with Pharma and AMA, they also met with stake holders secretly. [Imagine those who are the real experts and will help to implement a policy being involved in planning - shameful] Those big bad oil companies. Uh I have an idea – Drill for Oil right here in the good old USA and put wind farms next door to the Kennedy compound, give T Boone Pickens a contract for his Clean Energy Fuels Company, his natural gas self service stations [because the speaker of the house has invested with him]. Ravage the car American car companies some more by increasing the mileage number for 2013 [the year after the next presidential election, like Obamacare]. We do need to drill baby drill, but these office holders [who are the decision makers are bought and paid for by the Environmental nut jobs who are clinging to another lie. Wait till a brown out this coming summer; then some ill advised policy will be developed to go into effect in 2020. .

    5. Jeanne Stotler, Wood says:

      We need to bring suit against all acts that support this scam, we also need to go back to the Monroe doctrine about interfering in the affairs of other countries. Time has come to mend our own fenses, control immigration, clean up our corrupt politics ie: ACORN, SIVU unions and get rid of all gov't people getting paid for doing nothing but nodding their heads, ie: csars.

    6. John B. San Diego says:

      Listen, no one wants to breathe toxic air or drink polluted water, and I want to pass to my kids and grandchildren a clean environment. However I will tell you now, outrageous EPA authority will accomplish neither. Tightening the screws on our Industry and our Commerce while the remainder of nations gross pollute is no fix.

      Massachusetts had the U.S. Supreme Court hear the case against EPA based on unreliable (IPCC) data, and the court ruled carbon dioxide would be included as a pollutant, and

      Obama put the EPA on a mission “Enforce the Newly Amended Clean Air Act” to regulate CO2 emissions here in the U.S.

      EPA under this administration has adopted U.N. (IPCC) anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as a climatologically fact, when actually (AGW) as theorized by (IPCC) is based on skewed scientific observations, fraudulently conceived theory and incomplete proposed evidence, and lacks viable peer scrutiny, confidence and debate.

      This action will cost us Americans dearly many lawsuits and the legal fees and lack of productivity will passed to consumers higher costs for everything.

      Hence we reach the true objective of the Obama Administration; higher conventional petroleum prices invite and usher in "The Forcing of Renewable" on our economy, because Obama has no alternatives his "Cap&Tax' is DOA in the Senate.

      This will likely end up in the Supreme Court in some form again. But not until we have sufficiently paid!! Many less profit taking, job killing strategies exist as other paths to energy independence and reduction of environmental clean-up could be pursued.

    7. Ocala,fl says:

      Time for a CLEAN SWEEP of all those who hold this country back from being the world's GREATEST PRODUCER. Eliminate the EPA, UNIONS and anyone who is a scamster regarding the global warming HOAX and this includes the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! It is THE PRESIDENT who should be leading the way to energy production(oil,gas and coal) to create MORE JOBS in the private sector, with bonuses paid for efficiency and cleanliness rather than tying our hands BASED ON LIES!!!! Can you imagine a PRESIDENT destroying our economy and jobs because of his STUPIDITY and IGNORANCE and belief in a HOAX, designed to make a few people RICH!!! Liberals are so brainwashed and "feelings oriented" they buy every lie and the HOAXERS like GORE laugh all the way to the bank! Why does Warren BUFFET support Obama? Cause Buffet knows Obama will destroy the middle class on PURPOSE(as all communists do!) thereby creating MORE WALMART CUSTOMERS!!! No more NORDSTROM nor SAX, not even a MACY'S!!! People will only be able to afford WALMART! Are you people on crack or just what is your excuse for being so BLIND? Thank God for HERITAGE!

    8. hro001, Vancouver, B says:

      [Apologies if this is a duplicate; my previous attempt to submit gave me an error msg saying I was submitting comments too fast and should slow down - but I'm not sure why!]

      Clearly, the EPA and Obama need to get back to basics when it comes to the dreaded CO2 and "climate change". I came across a video, today, that even a child in 2nd grade would have no difficulty understanding. At the very least it should cause them to give their respective heads a shake.

      CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv

      And while I'm here, if you are interested in viewing some evidence of the Pachauri polluted process from which the EPA derives its findings, you might want to take a look at:

      The climate change game … Monopoly: the IPCC version

    9. mike w. says:

      I was interested in the Heritage foundation after listening to one of your authors on POTUS xm satellite channel. I am not impressed with the arguments of this particular author. I am certainly not an expert on energy policy, but was wondering what the author of these articles credentials are that make him an authority on the subject.

    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.