Congress is expected today to take up the so-called “cap and trade” bill that Democrats hope will drastically cut the greenhouse gases that many scientists believe imperil our planet.
We know our country must cut its greenhouse gas emissions, but this bill isn’t the way to do it. Even supporters of this complex system acknowledge that the measure relies far too much on clean-energy technology break-throughs that remains only theoretical.
The proposed legislation sponsored by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and championed by President Barack Obama, has been placed on a fast track by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who wants it passed before the July 4 congressional recess.
The debate on such a transformative issue ought to continue and broaden. How is it possible the 1,200-page American Clean Energy and Security Act is being rushed through Congress in a repeat of what happened with the stimulus package? Has anyone read this one?
The legislation seeks to reduce how much carbon dioxide, or CO2, is produced in our nation by 17 percent by 2020, and by 83 percent in 2050.
It would do so by creating a new market, where essentially shares of carbon allowances could be bought and sold. A power plant that needed more allowances could buy them from another that had reduced its carbon emissions. Over time, the number of allowances would shrink, forcing reductions of CO2.
Critics say such a market could be gamed by powerful interests and also would be susceptible to fraud.
Some environmentalists say a simple tax on emissions would be a far simpler way to discourage polluters and encourage green energy innovations. Such a “carbon tax” could be increased over time to spur our nation’s weaning from fossil fuels. We see merit in that approach.
Another problem with Waxman- Markey is that the analysis keeps changing. An early estimate by the Congressional Budget Office suggested the cost to families could be about $1,600 a year as the ratcheting down of credits to industry intensified.
A newer estimate by the CBO that looks more narrowly at costs to families for 2020 suggests a more modest $175 a year, but critics loudly dispute that calculation, because it doesn’t consider the stricter cap-and-trade limits coming years down the road.
And it doesn’t take into account the potential decrease in gross domestic product.
The cost to families could be seen as a necessary step. If we face catastrophic climate change, after all, it could be argued that it’s time to sacrifice for the greater good.
But here another problem arises with Waxman-Markey. As supporters of the bill admit, even if the United States cut emissions 83 percent by 2050, we would have trimmed global CO2 gases by but a few percentage points.
Supporters argue that large polluting nations such as China and India would follow our lead, adopt cap-and-trade provisions of their own, and/or start investing in the new-energy innovations that would someday come on line.
But that’s a huge bet that could prove reckless.
Largely left out of the current debate are questions about nuclear power. House Republicans say reducing CO2 depends on more atomic development. And for good reason. Nuclear power generation produces zero greenhouses gases and the technology far outpaces renewables like wind and solar in the amount of electricity it can add to the grid.
But public fear of reactor problems and radioactive waste stopped new construction of nuclear power plants decades ago.
European countries that rely much more exclusively on nuclear power have made advances in efficiency of the plants, which create less waste, and also ways to recycle and reuse spent rods. We would welcome its development here.
But with 104 nuclear reactors currently supplying only 20 percent of our power, we would need to build many more plants to offset our use of fossil fuels in time to meet the 2050 deadline.
Unless Congress truly believes it can convince enough communities to accept scores of new nuclear plants across our nation, Waxman- Markey’s goals exist in fantasy.
Creating green jobs and investing in renewable energy excites us. Quickly and intelligently curbing our reliance on fossil fuels makes sense in terms of caring for our environment and protecting our national security.
But Waxman-Markey isn’t the solution.
Fashioned to avoid appearing like a new tax, the measure nevertheless would work like one, as the higher costs of meeting the caps get passed on to consumers. The measure risks hurting our competitiveness globally without effectively lowering global greenhouse gases.
Congress should instead consider a simpler carbon tax, creating a “nuclear-arms race” to harness atomic power to replace fossil fuels and provide incentives to speed new-energy innovation.
