The House passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act
Friday was billed as a narrow victory for President Obama and the
green lobby. But was it a victory for real environmentalism?
Sadly, no. The legislation's many loopholes that had to be added
to secure its passage will make it far less effective -- to be
charitable. The "cap and trade" regime that the bill would create
promises to ratchet down carbon emissions over time but creates a
dangerous precedent for the environment.
Cap and trade essentially creates a property right out of
polluting. Once Company A has an emissions permit, it can release
a certain amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Or it can
sell its permit rights to Company Z.
The bright idea is to create an incentive to decrease carbon
emissions so that a company can profit off its excessive permits.
In reality, what it does is create an enforceable right to
pollute.
In the past, pollution was seen as a sort of "necessary evil"
that could be regulated or rescinded if necessary. Now companies
will have a right to pollute because they were already in the
polluting business and were grandfathered in, or because they
paid good money for that right.
Cap and trade guarantees the right to pollute over a certain,
fixed amount of time. The bill ratchets down the amount of carbon
emissions allowed over time by a schedule. That sounds like a win
for environmentalism. However, the percentages and dates create
expectations that go along with these permits being sold.
Companies will purchase permits from each other with the
expectation that they will be able to emit a specific amount of
carbon over a specific time period. These percentages and dates
are political goals and are not based on solid scientific
research.
That could lead to unexpectedly bad results. For example, the
amount of carbon emissions allowed could turn out to be
incredibly dangerous to the public. Under a cap and trade regime,
if the government attempts to "fix" the problem the action would
amount to a "taking." Lawyers would then tie it up in court for
years.
And the "cap" part of cap and trade is hardly set in stone. The
bill allows companies to offset their carbon emissions beyond
their permitted use by "helping the environment" in some other
politically favored way.
For example, if a company pays to preserve an acre of rain
forest, it secures the right to release more carbon emissions.
That might superficially seem to maintain the balance between
carbon producers and carbon reducers, but that balance is a
convenient myth.
Forget for a moment that the generous offsets allowed by the bill
were crafted in response to industry prodding. There is no hard
evidence that carbon offsets actually work.
And, remember, the environment is far bigger than the United
States. Companies can often go elsewhere. Congress has to take
into consideration that pushing companies out of the United
States into other, less regulated areas, would have the opposite
effect of the bill's intention.
Politicians need to realize there is a difference between doing
"something" to help combat global warming and doing "anything" on
that front.
It's unwise to ram a 1,500-page bill through the House in the
dead of the night -- with a last minute 300-page amendment tacked
on to buy needed votes -- and expect that to work.
All it amounts to now is a "feel good" bill with no realistic
environmental benefits at a huge cost to individuals.
