Conservative

By Nick Jacob

No matter what side of the global-warming debate one is on, Americans should fear the implementation of a cap-and-trade program in the United States. This kind of program would not only cause energy costs to skyrocket, but it would also raise taxes and do irreparable damage to the economy.

Under the program, the government would require every company in the United States to hold an emissions permit for each ton of carbon dioxide it emitted into the atmosphere.

These permits would represent a certain amount of credits, or allowances, which would put a cap on how much carbon dioxide the company could emit. Over time, this allowance would get more and more restrictive, until the target goal set by the government for that company was reached.

Needless to say, some companies would find it easier than others to meet these goals, and that is where the trade aspect of the program would come in.

Companies that could easily comply with the government’s emissions cap would be able to sell their extra permits to companies that could not comply as easily. In other words, less efficient companies would be forced to buy extra permits from more efficient companies in order to become compliant with government standards.

While many may think this sounds like a good idea, President Obama did a good job of explaining why it’s not.

In January 2008, then-candidate Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle, “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” He continued, “Whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”

In other words, to be able to afford the extra permits that they would inevitably have to buy, the companies that heat our homes and businesses would have to charge us more to do so. With the coal industry supplying half of the electricity we use in the United States, this would mean a lot less cash in the pockets of U.S. citizens.

While the burden on U.S. families would be heavy, the burden on energy companies would be unbearable. I’m all for investing in new types of energy as we move toward the future, but I don’t believe it’s right to punish the companies that are producing and utilizing the only resources we currently have at our disposal.

The oil, natural gas and coal industries are not evil, despite what some global-warming alarmists may tell you.

They play a key role in ensuring that our economy keeps chugging along, both in good times and in bad. Do they emit large amounts of carbon dioxide? Undoubtedly. Is man-made carbon dioxide to blame for the warming of the globe? The jury is still out.

So while the debate rages on, let’s not take action prematurely and punish business in order to solve a problem that many believe is purely cyclical. After all, the major concern back in the 1970s was global cooling, and here we are in 2009, concerned about global warming.

Regardless of who’s right about the global-warming debate, it’s clear to see that the implementation of a cap-and-trade program would be a disaster. It would significantly raise taxes on both businesses and families and would severely depress economic growth. There is one good piece of news, though, and that is that Congress recently decided to shelve this legislation, which means legislators won’t be looking at it again until 2010.

If we’re lucky, that should be just enough time for us to dig ourselves out of this recession before the government puts us back into another one.

Reach columnist Nick Jacob at opinion@dailyuw.com.

Liberal

By Chris Jordan

Let’s first get the facts.

The “debate” among scientists over whether global warming is happening and whether humans are part of the problem is all but over. As of 2007, no scientific organization of national or international standing has rejected the basic argument that humans are contributing to climate change — not one.

The last organization in the world to claim that humans weren’t impacting climate change was, not surprisingly, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists — they’ve changed their minds. Petroleum is a nice way of saying “crude oil.” Yes, it’s true: Even the oil geologists don’t deny human impact on global warming at this point.

There are still some scattered scientists who do deny human impact, but alas, the Flat Earth Society that believes pictures of the Earth from space are all fake still exists. I suppose it’s impossible to convince everyone.

Recent reports have shown Arctic-ice melting at a much faster pace than previously anticipated. Many scientists believe we are headed beyond the worst-case scenario, and 54 percent of climatologists now believe we need an emergency “plan B” for removing carbon from the atmosphere due to the rapidly accelerating pace of the climate crisis.

These signs show that the need for action now is greater than ever.

Currently, an economy-wide “cap-and-trade” solution is being debated in the relevant congressional committees. Last week former senators Al Gore, D-Tenn., and Mark Warner, R-Va., testified in support of the Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.

The idea behind a cap-and-trade system is that the government imposes a carbon emissions cap on companies. All companies are required to buy permits for each ton of carbon they emit. Those companies that lower their emissions below the cap can sell their excess permits to companies who fail to sufficiently lower their emissions. Thus, the cap-and-trade system rewards clean companies and provides incentives for everyone to lower carbon emissions at the lowest overall cost to the economy.

The only cap-and-trade system that has been implemented thus far on a large scale is in the European Union; it began in 2005 with every country participating. So far the program has failed to produce results because the government-imposed cap was so generous that companies didn’t even bother trying to reduce emissions.

Surely, we can learn from their mistakes and make this work.

Much has been said about the impact this proposal might have on our ailing national economy. But all you have to do is ask some of the largest companies in the United States, including Johnson & Johnson, Ford, Xerox, Shell, GE, PepsiCo, John Deere and ConocoPhillips. They are all on record supporting cap and trade as the best way to reduce carbon emissions while also protecting American businesses.

If cap-and-trade proposals are passed, opponents often forget that revenue generated from the auction of the carbon permits will be used to help offset the costs of transition for companies and individuals. They also forget that cap and trade will create an enormous nationwide demand for cheap, alternative, green energy sources. An explosion of green jobs and energy is not a recipe for disaster; it’s clearly part of the solution to our current economic troubles.

The bottom line is that action regarding global warming is needed now more than ever, and cap and trade is the best way to reduce carbon emissions at the least overall cost. We should emerge from this economic downturn smarter, more efficient and better than we were before. Cap and trade offers a great start.

Reach columnist Chris Jordan at opinion@dailyuw.com.

0 Comments

2 Comments