As soon as a coin in the coffer rings
A soul from purgatory springs.
So went a mantra from 16th-century Europe, when
salvation — or, so the idea went — could be purchased by anyone
willing to pay the price: sold to the sinner for cold hard cash.
Sins were absolved, sinners sanctified, offenses forgotten.
Money, not the commitment to a better life, promised that
debauchery and divinity could cohabit in the ledgers of the holy
treasurer. By virtue of a self-promoting religiosity, these
indulgences, as they were called, purported to place
spiritual caps on the consequences of forbidden acts. A weekend
of decadent and intemperate living brought no punishment for
breaking with accepted piety. In theory, at least, a person could
excuse all the depravity he wanted, as long as those indulgent
acts were economically sanctioned by appropriate authorities.
Contrary to the hopes of the sinner, however, financial
machinations had not the power to sanctify the sinner. The sins
remained even when the money did not. What started out as a
dubious collection plate, ended up decimating the reputation and
structure of organized religion in Europe. Sin and corruption,
rather than dissipating, coalesced at the foundation of Western
Religion, paving the way for years of violent reformation.
Is Cap-and-Trade just another politically indulgent
Indulgence?
The comparison is not without merit. Last month, Henry Waxman,
Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Speaker
Nancy Pelosi, preached the virtues of righteous energy policy,
pressing members in a twilight session with supernal promises
of political — and most assuredly, financial — indulgences.
After not a little dealing and celestial wrangling, Speaker
Pelosi and Chairman Waxman did sufficiently succor their sheep,
and H.R. 2454 (“Cap-and-Trade”) passed
219-212: filled, to be sure, with all manner of goodies for the
faithful 219 who supported it.
Through those 219 votes, House leadership secured unprecedented
relief and forgiveness for immoral acts of environmental
irresponsibility. Carbon footprints would remain but would be
washed clean in the waters of financial justification.
Corporations that emitted excessively sinful emissions would be
permitted to atone for their conduct by dropping punitive
offerings into the governmental coffer (i.e., purchasing “carbon
credits”). Wherefore, if a corporation feels particularly
righteous, it can demonstrate contrition by purchasing
indulgences for its harmful conduct and/or trading with a
non-offending corporation for rights to its accumulated
footprints of the carbon variety. Whether offering lucre
directly to the Government or trading with non-offending
corporations for rights to their unblemished credits, the
offending acts still occur, however, and like the sins of that
earlier version, the environmental vice remains. The only
real change is that which is found in the financial ledgers of
the Government, or the pockets of the ministers of financial
regulation — those who oversee the process. Sounds
horrifyingly illogical enough, but what of the political
ramifications sewn in the seeds of such atavistic audacity?
One queries the mind: How will constituents respond to a bargain
that causes producers to raise energy prices so that consumers
can hear the governmental coffer ring louder and faster? Will
voters be willing to grant their leaders the immortality of
another term when the promised jobs and agricultural boon bear
little more than higher costs, higher unemployment, and a
dustbowl of political chaff? By what authority will the
likes of Chairman Waxman and Speaker Pelosi add years to the
terms of their 219 over the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of
constituents’ teeth? How will the planet be safer when polluters
export their sin from wealthy to impoverished countries that have
much less concern for the environmental well-being of
their communities — not to mention open debates on the
subject? Under Cap-and-Trade’s proposed bargain, behavior
wouldn’t change, only change would: from the payrolls of
the corporations to the coffers of the regulators.
Just what are the environmental and economical effects of these
caps? Do we know? Surely, if a single member of the
House had
read the 1300-page bill, we might have been
told. Our elected officials call
Cap-and-Trade a “moral
imperative” that is necessary to reduce environmental heresy
— again, a moral imperative whose text was not read by a single
member of the House. Apparently, they believe that devotion to
their ineffable plan is sufficient to keep the flock from
squirming out from under its financial yoke. Do they believe
their parishioners won’t seek out more liberating pastures free
of the unnecessary and largely unknown encumbrances that are sure
to come? This latest chapter in environmentalism’s holy writ has
neither the reason nor the canonical authority to direct the
economic or social instincts of the masses. Given the growing
number of environmental apostates, people who have left the
global warming faithful, it would seem, in fact, that the planet
and its stewards would be better suited by a more measured and
reasonable approach — one that has been discussed, debated, and
even read by those demanding its passage. Until such
reasonable energy policy is presented, sermons of planetary and
economical salvation seem disingenuous at best and at their
worst, unsupportable.
Rather than allowing reasonable minds debate and dissent,
environmental heretics are threatened with social and political
excommunication. When consumers seek answers, the masses are
rebuffed and logic is stymied. Despite a tectonic shift in the
claims and warnings of environmental data, the rush to act pushes
for immediate conformity. Pay now, before it’s too late! The
coffers need to be filled! Details will come after the bill is
passed (and read)! Take that leap of faith and (environmental)
salvation is yours! There is no time to waste!
But alas, the time for illumination is not over, and an
enlightened debate can bring reasonable dogma and people
together. The Reformation of old removed barriers to holy
writ, and brought comprehension and light to the confounded. The
masses were respected enough to be seen as arbiters of their own
existence in accordance with the written word. With the increased
knowledge came an increased ability to understanding each
person’s respective responsibility. Access to the text
showed trust and respect. Likewise, is it too much to expect that
our elected officials illuminate us on the actual contents of
something that is so “imperative”? Perhaps that is one
indulgence that they can share with us. Pollution and
environmental mayhem are enemies to all: consumers,
voters, and the planet. Energy policy must be addressed in the
light of day, not in harried sessions of hyperbole and ad
hominem.
As they continue their crusade against the invisible hand of Adam
Smith, those who would mar the debate solely for political gain
need to be exposed as the fallen priests that they are. Their
sins against sound economic and energy policy cannot be
tolerated, nor can their pleas for indulgence be
answered. Cap-and-Trade does not cap environmental sin but
merely trades a self-serving social agenda for economic
misery. Environmental health and longevity has a shrine in
the marketplace of liberty and commerce. This shrine, free
from the yoke of excessive regulation, protects and rewards the
good steward of conservation. It nurtures the economy, promotes
policies that ensure environmental immortality, and persecutes
those who abuse our natural resources.
Rather than being wary of the market’s ability to shepherd good
energy and environmental policy, we should protect our flocks
from promises of false profits made by false prophets.
