Cap and Trade May Not Be Dead
The U.S House Committee on Environment and Public Works met for the first time in three years yesterday to discuss the issue of global warming. Global warming has lost its steam with Americans, with many of them no longer trusting what the scientist are even saying now. President Obama and the Democratic representatives in the House and Senate are calling for an energy revolution to reduce the use of reliable and affordable energy provided by fossil fuels in favor of ‘green’ energy. The Obama administration first tried to achieve its energy revolution through a costly cap-and-trade regime created in the Waxman-Markey bill, which would have cost Americans jobs and money. When the bill could not be passed in the Senate, President Obama opted to impose his economically devastating plans through the bureaucracy, spearheaded by an aggressive regulatory push by the EPA. In addition, Senator Inhofe has identified $68 billion of taxpayer money that has already been spent on the global warming agenda, including disastrous loans to solar companies who are failing left and right.
The Democratic members of the Committee are urging more legislation to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and continue to support a cap and trade bill. But one sitting member from Arkansas noted that a cap and trade bill would increase electric and gas prices in his state to levels greater than struggling Americans could afford. Senator Inhofe also noted a study finding that cap and trade could cost anywhere from $300-$400 billion per year. It was also found that even under a cap and trade system there would be no significant, if any, change in CO2 or greenhouse gas levels. At the same time, however, the regulations would hinder growth in the economy. A major reason as to why the regulation would do nothing to diminish emissions is the fact that developing nations such as China, Russia, and India are responsible for a growing share of emissions. Sens. Boxer and Sanders acknowledge this issue but maintain that it is our moral and economic duty to lead the world in making these green changes. I find it very hard to believe that just because America begins implementing ‘green’ technology to reduce emissions that China, Mexico and other major sources of emissions would suddenly follow suit. Therefore, American companies would be dumping millions of dollars into compliance for something that in the long-run does nothing to change emission levels, but would most likely lead to more outsourcing and economic harm due to the increased cost of conducting business in the U.S.
