Despite
claims
to the
contrary, the
energy tax
known as
cap and
trade is
still alive.
Although
Senate
Majority
Leader Harry
Reid has
supposedly
pulled the
plug on
it, our
implacable
Senatorial
leadership is
reportedly
conspiring to
foist the
Kerry-Lieberman
bill on
the American
people by
bringing it
to a
vote during
the lame
duck session.
They would
then
reinstate the
cap and
trade
provision
during
conference
with the
House’s
Waxman-Markey
Bill. This
scheme would
not only
impose huge
new taxes
on the
American
people, it
could also
transfer
billions of
dollars and
many
thousands of
jobs to
Mexico.
The
first
reason for
timing the
vote after
the election
should be
obvious. The
Democrats
hope that
retiring
Republican
Senators
George
Voinovich
(OH), George
LeMieux (FL),
and Judd
Gregg (NH),
who have
voiced
support for
climate
legislation
in the
past and
will no
longer need
to worry
about
responding to
their
constituents,
will buck
the party
line in
order to
cement their
respective
“legacies” in
the eyes
of the
media and
liberal
historians.
Asked about
this
possibility,
White House
spokesman
Robert Gibbs
said he
“certainly
wouldn’t rule
it out.”
This threat
must be
taken
seriously.
Most
Americans
understand
that cap
and trade
would mean
skyrocketing
energy costs
— as the
President
himself
admitted
during his
election
campaign —
but
that’s
not all.
Cap and
trade would
carry serious
geopolitical
ramifications
for the
United
States.
During
the
lame duck
session,
President
Obama will
likely travel
to Cancun,
not on
vacation, but
to attend
a global
climate
summit. At
this
follow-up to
the failed
Copenhagen
summit, the
international
environmental
establishment
will hope
to revive
negotiations
for a
successor to
the Kyoto
Protocol. The
U.S. will
face pressure
not only
to cap
its own
emissions,
but to
provide aid
to developing
countries
like Mexico
to help
them develop
their own
“green”
energy
industries
and build
new, “clean”
industrial
capacity —
the better
to
out-compete
America’s
newly
energy-taxed
industries.
The EU
has already
pledged €7.3
billion
($9.92
billion) in
“climate aid”
to poor
countries
over the
next three
years
(although
much of
this is
repurposed
general
aid).
Where
would
America find
the money
to send
this aid
abroad? Much
of the
money would
likely come
from the
sale of
carbon
permits to
American
businesses,
the cost
of which
will mostly
be passed
on to
consumers.
Developing
countries are
demanding
this as
part of
any successor
to Kyoto,
which expires
in 2012.
However, they
are also
demanding
that
developing
countries —
including
major
emerging
economies
like Mexico,
Brazil, and
China — be
exempted from
having to
reduce their
own
emissions, at
least in
the short
term.
In
other
words, Kyoto
II would
be a
ratchet,
aimed at
squeezing
money from
the developed
world and
sending it
to the
developing
nations.
Entire
industries
would be
so badly
affected by
the carbon
caps that
they would
move lock,
stock, and
barrel to
developing
countries, so
the flow
of cash
would soon
turn into
a flow
of cash
and jobs.
Meanwhile,
developed
countries,
facing huge
job losses,
would face
a much
harder time
raising the
money to
fund the
flow of
cash. As
a result,
the promises
of climate
aid would
be even
harder to
keep as
the developed
world sinks
into an
artificial
recession,
caused by
our own
climate
guilt.
The
sad
reality is
that this
utopian
scheme would
not even
result in
global
emissions
reductions,
because
industries
will relocate
to where
they would
need to
make no
appreciable
cuts in
emissions.
For Mexico,
this,
combined with
its proximity
to the
United
States, would
mean a
huge boon
to its
industrial
capacity as
many American
firms
relocate
facilities
there.
President
Obama
likely will
be feted
by both
the Hollywood
glitterati
and the
Mexican
people if
he brings
this stimulus
for the
Mexican
economy to
Cancun. The
American
people should
be wary
of such
generosity
with their
money. If
ever we
needed a
“Mexican
standoff” on
a Senate
measure, this
is it.
