Cap and Trade is not a new concept, nor is it a left wing policy, it’s roots in legislation in the U.S. came from a true bipartisan policy that was based upon fairly sound economics. The short history essentially goes something like this:
In the 70’s the SO2 concentrations in coal burning plant exhaust was sufficient to produce detrimental effects on both the populace and the environment in the form of Acid Rain. There were several attempts to find ways to solve this but no legislation could move forward because the cost to industry was considered far to high. Several economists, using different economic models went through many variations on methods and means to achieve the noble goal of the end of acid rain. All of these models included some form of restriction on emissions, enforceable by the EPA, but it wasn’t until one of these economists considered a secondary economy of transportable credits that could be traded between emitters that they came upon a model that was economically feasible. Thus Cap & Trade was born. This economic model was put into fashion by a bipartisan group that agreed on the problem, and decided to find a feasible solution. And in 1990 G.H.W. Bush signed the amendments to the Clean Air Act of 1970 into law, capping SO2 emissions and creating a barter system that rewarded efficient companies and innovators that could find ways to reduce their emissions, and leaving the majority of the burden of the price tag on those companies that could not change. Of course some portion of this increase in the cost of doing business would be passed on to the consumer but since the goal was noble and everyone essentially agreed that the problem needed to be fixed everyone was willing to accept the additional costs and move forward. And it was very successful (when the EPA effectively enforced it) and acid rain has been drastically reduced. NOx emissions were next, and also very effective.
Now we get to the current debate. The GOP has been fighting hard against these controls being applied to CO2 emissions, and that is the real issue. They are actually arguing that controls on CO2 are too costly, why you ask, because they don’t believe that man made CO2 has the harmful effects that the IPCC or most of the rest of the world has agreed upon by consensus. That’s right, they do not believe in Climate Change, and this is why they oppose Cap & Trade. It is not that the Cap & Trade policy is bad, it has been proven as an effective tool in reducing emissions, providing incentives to innovate and change, and at the least effective cost to the consumers/tax payers and industry as a whole. Some members of the GOP will still say that they don’t believe but since the media mocks them and tries to show them as radical conservatives or loons, most no longer are willing to step out from the herd like that. So they argue against bills or measures that would actually make strides towards reducing carbon in the atmosphere, and avoid the subject as to what their real motivation is. If they bought into climate change, they would be applauding the application of Cap & Trade as the most effective means that can be provided at the least cost.
Whether you believe in climate change or not is not the issue. It is the manner in which these people that represent us that matters. The GOP has effectively blocked this legislation, and though, not officially, this bill is dead. CO2 will continue to be unregulated which is the GOPs real intent. The threat to put it under EPA jurisdiction is just that, a threat. The EPA cannot act unilaterally and declare something controllable without an expected back lash, and subsequent lawsuits. It is just a matter of time until this happens.
Chris