This January, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley proposed
legislation that he promised would fight climate change and
“grow” the economy. This week, the state Senate passed the bill,
with one of those “Who could disagree with it?” titles the
“Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act.” If it becomes law, voters will
slowly begin to see how reducing Maryland’s carbon footprint also
hurts the state’s economic prospects.
This isn’t rocket science. It’s basic math. Fighting climate
change hurts the economy because almost all acts of economic
production are powered by combusting fossil fuels (coal, oil, and
natural gas), a process that emits greenhouse gases thought to
cause global warming. Alternative “clean” energy sources such as
wind and solar power are said to be the solution to climate
change, but they are much more expensive than fossil fuels. So
more clean energy = higher production costs.
Maryland’s steel workers understand the tension between fighting
climate change and economic growth, which is why they opposed a
similar global warming bill last year. O’Malley won their support
this time by exempting them from costly greenhouse gas emissions
reductions.
O’Malley’s bargain with the steelworkers is an acknowledgment
that his plans are painful. Yet the governor tries to make his
global warming policies sound easy, even profitable. His plan
proposes precipitous emissions cuts of 25 percent below 2006
levels by 2020, while at the same time promising a “net increase
in jobs and a net economic benefit.”
In his press release, O’Malley trumpets a study that claims steep
emissions cuts could “result in a net economic benefit to the
state of approximately $2 billion.” But his legislation only pays
lip service to the study’s severe “recommended goals” for
emissions reductions in 2010 and 2015.
Put it this way: If the governor and the Senate truly believe
that the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act is an economic opportunity,
why do they delay binding emissions cuts until 2020? Why not
start now?
It’s just a little too convenient that the governor postpones
real targets — and therefore real economic sacrifice — until he
is safely out of office. O’Malley’s lieutenants constantly praise
the governor’s “bold” leadership, but his style of governance
more resembles James Buchanan’s than Abraham Lincoln’s.
O’Malley says Maryland simply “must take action on climate
change” because the state is “so vulnerable to rising sea levels”
due to its 3,100 miles of coastline. Really? According to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the preeminent body of
climate scientists, sea levels are expected to rise about 15
inches through 2100. That’s only three inches more than sea
levels rose over the last 150 years.
Somehow Maryland survived and thrived in the last century and a
half. There’s little reason to expect the state won’t continue to
prosper — unless its politicians enact ill conceived climate
plans that shackle economic growth.
And sea levels will only rise if temperatures actually warm.
Temperatures haven’t increased in seven years, despite a steady
increase in global emissions of carbon dioxide. (Sorry, Al Gore.)
There’s even some early evidence that sea levels have fallen for
the past two years.
But we digress. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act is part of
Governor O’Malley’s “Smart, Green, and Growing” legislative
agenda. His expensive energy policies might be green, but they
certainly won’t lead to growth in Maryland’s economy.
That the Maryland Senate would go along with this during a severe
recession is right generous of them, we think. However, the House
of Delegates may have a different opinion.
