• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • 83 CEOs Make Case for Cap and Trade

    Calling for a necessary transition to a low carbon energy economy, 83 CEOs sent a letter to President Obama demanding movement on cap and trade legislation to create green jobs. According to the press release, “the letter was signed by 83 CEOs from some of the nation’s largest electric power, manufacturing, clean tech, technology and consumer facing companies.”

    Imagine that. The politically invested companies that stand to gain the most from cap and trade and spent millions to lobby this bill through Congress want to see it passed at the expense of American energy consumers and the American economy. This is no different than Archer Daniels Midland sending a letter to the president asking for an increase in the ethanol mandate.  Robert Bradley Jr. calls cap and trade the Enron Revitalization Act. He even includes a memo from Enron lobbyist John Palmisano about the Kyoto agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

    If implemented, this agreement will do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring of the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States. The potential to add incremental gas sales, and additional demand for renewable technology is enormous.”

    Other than the direct beneficiaries, cap and trade is a raw deal for Americans, but that’s certainly not how the letter reads. The CEOs’ letter says, “This legislation will spur a new energy economy and with it create 1.7 million new American jobs, many in struggling communities across the country.” With enough subsidies and government mandates in place, cap and trade could ostensibly create 1.7 million jobs. But according to calculation from Heritage Foundation economists, cap and trade legislation would destroy far more jobs than the policy would create. The Center for Data Analysis study on the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill found net job losses (after green job creation) approach 1.9 million in 2012 and could approach 2.5 million by 2035. Manufacturing loses 1.4 million jobs in 2035.

    One example where this already happened is Spain. The country spends about $8 billion a year on green energy subsidies. The result is that for every green job created, 2.2 jobs were lost because so much money was taken out of viable parts of the economy and put into a more unreliable green market.

    The free lunchers forget to take into consideration that subsidies and government handouts for renewable projects diverts those workers and resources away from more productive use. Moreover, a cap and trade policy will destroy more jobs than it creates. Because cap and trade is a tax on energy, the cost of producing goods for businesses increases, and consumer demand falls for two reasons; price hikes on goods reduce demand and people have less disposable income due to higher energy prices.

    Higher energy prices force businesses to make production cuts and reduce labor. Furthermore, as we see in the current recession, reduced consumer spending only exacerbates this. The overall result is increased unemployment and slow economic growth. Jobs will either mover overseas or cease to exist. Smaller businesses that can’t absorb the costs or afford lobbyists will simply disappear.

    And we’re not the only ones projecting losses. At a recent Heritage event on the costs of cap and trade, not one of the 6 speakers representing groups who modeled the bill, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, discussed economic benefits from cap and trade – it was all about the magnitude of the losses.

    The letter goes on to say, “We need strong policies and clear market signals that support the transition to a low-carbon economy and reward companies that innovate.” Take out the words “support the transition to a low-carbon economy and” and you have sound energy policy that would lead increase production, create jobs, and lower energy prices.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    15 Responses to 83 CEOs Make Case for Cap and Trade

    1. chris pedersen says:


    2. Bobbie Jay says:

      the only greedy ceo's have government ties.

    3. Edward Brynes says:

      The actual signers are worth attention. My impression is that the vast majority are not CEOs of large corporations that actually make tangible products. Typical is an Aimee Christenson of "Christenson Global Strategies", which from its website is a kind of consulting and PR organization dealing with environmental issues for corporations. Or there is Mark Morelli, of "Energy Conversion Devices", which make solar panels. And so on. Most of the signers have a direct interest in government intervention in environmental issues.

    4. Lloyd Scallan - New says:

      Please, Please provide the names of the CEO's and companies. Allow us to

      express the way we feel about crap and tax.

    5. Tom/Georgia says:

      Okay, so 83 CEO's endorse cap and trade and the development of "green?" energy to replace carbon-base fossil fuels. Complete with taxpayer subsidies for the "clean and green", of course.

      So…..If "green" is great, why don't they put their corporations' money where their mouths are? Or is it just the expenditure of other peoples' money that they favor as they position themselves to be adjacent to and ready to dip into the streams of other peoples' money if and when it should start to flow from The Treasury and/or from state governments?

      Don't you reckon that green is the most prevalant color for scum balls? And blobs of algae?

    6. Nicolas Loris Nick Loris says:

      Thank you Rick74 for catching that.

      For those interested in the companies, the link to the letter in the post (it's a PDF file) will take you there.

    7. Rick74 says:

      Your last paragraph is intriguing and missing a critical word:

      The letter goes on to say, “We need strong policies and clear market signals that support the transition to a low-carbon economy and reward companies that innovate.” Take OUT the words “support the transition to a low-carbon economy and” and you have sound energy policy that would lead increase production, create jobs, and lower energy prices.

      Sorrry to OUT this error, but it needs OUTing.

    8. Ocala,fl says:

      And the lunatic libs have always screamed “GREEDY CAPITALISTS!”. They aint seen nothin yet! Just wait til the GREEN MOVEMENT really kicks in with their job killing (more lost than gained), extremely expensive and wasteful attempt to replace the gas/oil/coal industry which is more efficient and cost effective. I moved from Ca to Fl where ethanol is 10% of gasoline. My mileage has DROPPED from 35mpg to 26mpg! You call this PROGRESS?! And not to mention the DAMAGE being done to my car with this cornoil NONSENSE! Windmills at $2million each(replacing 4 barrels of oil per day!!!?? which hardly work, forget the LIES about them. we need the TRUTH and the fact they kill millions of birds! Ethanol costs more to produce than its worth and destroys engines! Why does this government PROMOTE JOB/ECONOMY KILLING MEASURES because of LIES like global warming? CONTROL OF THE PEOPLE! HEY FOLKS>>WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IN CONTROL! VOTE OUT EVERY PERSON WHO MENTIONS G/W or CAP/TRADE!

    9. Drew Page, IL says:

      It's no accident that Jeff Imelt, General Electric CEO, sits on Mr. Obama's advisory board. G.E. stands to benefit tremendously from Cap & Trade and from the push for "alternative" energy sources, regardless of the cost to the taxpayers.

    10. Spiritof76, NH says:

      Those 83 CEO's are not part of legitimate capitalistic enterprises. They are parasites. If their business can not stand the market economics, let them get out and have someone else run those companies.

      GE is a prime exmple of a failed corporation run by the clueless CEO, Immelt. Imagine, the company was founded by Thomas Edison and now, largely depends on government (tax payer) handouts. GE is pushing for the cap and trade because they have organized themselves to make money off of it. In that process, Immelt is destroying the $12B GE Power System business (Except for $3B wind turbine) and $10B Aircraft Engine business. GE has lost its premium on its stock price since it is more like a financial company than an industrial company.

      You should state," 83 Losers in charge" are looking for government handouts while destroying the rest of America.

    11. Tim Az says:

      They don't give a rats rear end about job creation. They know there won't be any jobs created. All these clowns wants is a tax payer funded stock market of carbon credits that will make them even wealthier with no possibility of benefit to the tax payer. This is truly corporate welfare forced on the backs of every American.They think you are so stupid that you will thank them for this confiscatory practice because its good for the environment even if it starves you.

    12. John Clancy, Wyandot says:

      "That government is best which governs least." We need to apply the principle of subsidiarity to health, to energy, and to our educational system. Subsidiarity simply means that issues ought to be solved by the smallest and least centralized competent authority. Families, small businesses, local schools, parental control, doctors with patients, local communities.

      The federal government's role is to do what it can to promote, to stimulate activity in the vital areas of health, energy, and education where they are least centralized. Of course this means working with governors and leaders at the state level, and they, in turn, with smaller units of government. This approach is what made our country great. Sadly, the philosophy of this administration works in a manner diametrically opposed to the principle of subsidiarity.

    13. THE CAPTAIN, New Orl says:

      I am for green energy. So can I put a windmill on my 12mpg SUV? Can I dispose of the batteries from my hybrid SUV witthout hurting the environment? Can anyone tell me what will replace the internal combustion engine? The answer to all three questions is NO. So why are we being punished with a tax?

      Of course we are not being taxed. It is those big, bad energy companies that will be taxed. Sure, they will eat the tax costs. More tax, more give-a-ways. No, No, No. It is time to drill offshore. It is time to drill in the Alaskan wilderness. It is time to use our own resources in order to keep the money here. Global warning caused by man is a hoax. The so-called scientists have been creating this hoax. Let's burn the fuel, but start some research on alternatives.

    14. Pingback: President Obama on Meeting with Bank CEOs | Banking and co

    15. David, York, Pa says:

      Imagine that! Eighty three (83) self-serving CEO's want the government to plow ahead with Cap and Tax. Could it be their companies will benefit through government subsidies of inefficient and unproven alternative fuel strategies? Me thinks so.

    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.