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
5 Comments
Chris,
I have a few issues with that post and I am sure you already know what they are and are prepared with response.
1) Your claim that the EPA’s Acid Rain Program is what resulted in the large scale reduction in SO2 emissions and thus acid rain is only part of the story. You failed to mention that the reduction in emissions also strangely correlates with the affordability of Flue-gas Desulfurization technology.
2) How can you possibly make the claim that CO2 emissions have any effect on climate change? There is no scientific evidence to back up that claim. In fact, there is ample evidence to show that the global temperature variations we are seeing now are perfectly normal and expected. The only increase directly related to CO2 is Al Gores net worth.
Rich
1. You bring up a point I was hoping someone would. As a result of increasing regulation from earlier amendments from 1970 when the CAA was originally inacted through 1977, the real innovation towards FGD systems took off. Prior to that all you had was the initial attempt instituted in Britain in the 30′s (which was scrapped during the war), which meant you had very little to start from. So, from 1978 to 1990, great strides were made, the newer technologies that lead from the Wellman-Lord process in the late 70s, to the use of vertical sprayers and ash pumps in the late 80s.
The point is, the technology was advancing but the problem wasn’t getting better. The 1977 limits pushed the technology and innovation, it set a target for industry, that industry stepped up to meet, and when it was clear that there was still much work to do, the bar was raised. The drop in cost of the technology did not occur overnight, and the target levels weren’t listed as a fixed thing but remained in motion. Add to that that most western states (with California leading the charge) set standards that exceeded the federal guidelines. Add to that greater distribution of PBR coal which has drastically lower concentrations of sulfur and you get the desired results. In this case regulation pushed the innovation, though I will admit, this is not usually the case.
2. It is almost as if what I said actually went right over your head. The reasons for the restrictions on CO2 are because the majority of the world has bought into climate change and the fact that man-made CO2 emissions are believed to be the cause. The fight against these regulations is because Republicans haven’t bought into climate change.
I have not stated that CO2 causes climate change, and I specifically stated that, “Whether you believe in climate change or not is not the issue.” And yet here we are Rich, arguing about climate change. This fight is about a perceived problem, not necessarily about a real one, kind of like Y2K. Do you know how much money was spent to fix that little error? It will be just a drop in the bucket compared to what it will cost to fix this one, hence Republican opposition.
Chris,
Points taken. I think I read a little more into the overall tone of your climate change argument than maybe I should have. Yes, it would have been nice if the Republicans could have opposed this bill on the scientific issue alone but you know as well as I do that would have been a failure.
Rich
Well, that is the point, they cannot argue it because no one is really paying attention to the science anymore. You cannot argue against politicized science as a politician when the majority of the world has signed onto the premise of what you are arguing against, it would be career suicide.
I recommend reading Michael Crichton’s State of Fear. Following the Novel (which is a good read btw) he has an essay of the evil’s of politicized science, including a look at the euginics movement of the early twentieth century. Also, there are podcasts of a series of debates called ‘Intelligence Squared’ that include several arguments for and against Climate Change that are excellent, including one in which Michael Crichton makes a case against the redirection of resources to ‘fix’ it.
I believe I came acroos his essay somewhere a few months ago. State of Fear is on my list, just haven’t gotten to it yet. Its too bad Chricton passed away, he was a very eloquent voice of reason and will be sorely missed.
Post a Comment