Congress split on cap-and-trade's impact on jobs
This was originally published on CBSNews.com.
WASHINGTON--Congressional Democrats' proposal to create a trading system for carbon emissions will create jobs and bolster the economy, the Obama administration told Congress on Wednesday.
House Republicans insisted, however, that the proposal, which would charge the largest emitters of carbon dioxide for burning fossil fuels, would result in higher energy and gasoline prices for consumers, as well as a loss of U.S. jobs as carbon emitters moved positions overseas to unregulated markets.
"I believe this is a jobs bill that focuses our country's attention on the global industry of the future, which is the clean energy industry," Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The far-reaching legislation being drafted by Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) would institute a cap-and-trade system in which carbon emitters would be allowed to buy and trade permits for certain levels of emissions. The bill would also establish a renewable electricity standard and an energy efficiency standard.
"In the future, it is very clear we will be living in a carbon-constrained world," said Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu. "The U.S. must position itself so we can lead that transition."
Republicans on the committee, however, countered that the bill does not provide enough specifics to reach the administration's optimistic conclusions and warned that just the opposite could be true.
"My fear, my belief, is this is an intentional move to deceive us so we're not allowed to do the cost-benefit analysis," said Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.).
This bill is the "largest assault on democracy and freedom on this country that I've ever experienced," he said.
Specifically, the bill lacks details on whether the permits would all be auctioned to carbon emitters, or whether some would be automatically granted to some companies to relieve their economic burden during the transition to a cap-and-trade system. Other data has yet to be provided, such as a proposed cost for the permits.
"This proposal puts a bull's eye on the back of working families," said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.). "Just wait until they get their hands on their utility bills that are capped and taxed."
The administration representatives said cost of the carbon permits should be returned to the American people in the form of the rebate.
Additionally, they said, any costs that may be passed onto consumers would presumably be offset from the benefits gained from higher-efficiency homes and appliances.
Working with the information available from the draft bill, the EPA completed a preliminary analysis of the cap-and-trade portion of the bill, concluding that it would accelerate the deployment of clean-energy technology while growing the economy, at relatively little cost to the consumer.
Before including cost-saving measures like the increase of energy-efficient appliances, the analysis concludes the cap-and-trade program would cost the average household $98 to $140 a year. To reach that figure, the EPA assumed about 40 percent of the allowances would be returned to citizens in some form such as rebates.
The number stands in stark contrast to the figure of $3,100 a year floated by Republicans. That figure was based on a report from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, but its author said it misrepresented his findings.
In addition to higher energy prices, consumers would suffer from job losses, said Shimkus, who pointed to the 35,000 coal-mining jobs lost in Ohio as a result of regulations imposed under the Clean Air Act.
Jackson warned, "The 'no, we can't' crowd will spin out doomsday scenarios about runaway costs."
She pointed out that the Acid Rain Trading Program, which was established in 1990 under the Clean Air Act, delivered huge benefits--to the tune of $120 billion a year--with an annual cost of only $3 billion a year. The acid rain program is a trading system comparable to a carbon cap-and-trade program.
Republicans also questioned whether putting a price on carbon in the United States would have any impact, given that growing carbon producers like China and India are not adopting similar programs.
"If the United States does take the lead, China will follow," Chu said, adding that he had spoken at length personally with Chinese officials on the issue. "They are taking it very seriously because they see the impacts of climate change as well."
Stephanie Condon is a staff writer for CNET News focused on the intersection of technology and politics. She is based in Washington, D.C. E-mail Stephanie. 
They continue to use the same tired programs and misinformation to make things worse with the feeble hope that they can win back control of the government sometime in the future. Then they will be able to direct no-bid contracts and bonus to their CEO friends again.
It's time for all Americans to step up and fix this mess!
As to the carbon tax, this will hurt our economy more than anything in recent memory. This will increase unemployment & will increase energy costs, which will in turn increase the cost of EVERYTHING. The cost for the basic necessities of life will be increased by at least 25% because of this nonsense. And to beat it all, this whole scheme is based on unproven science!
Other taxes will have to be increased to offset the cost of concrete. Concrete plants will be affected big time which means your roads that tax money pays for will have to increase in response. Most public works projects, especially the ones President Obama is pushing, will dramatically increase in the cost.
This is a very ill-conceived scheme to implement during a period of good economic growth and it's flat out dangerous in a recession.
Remember this is land of the free, if we keep letting congress be our momma and papa they will take us away from our parents, keep control over us, put us in youth brigades, put our parents in fema camps, and then we will be under control be papa Sam instead of uncle sam.
Remember if they add more taxes more people will gang together to steal gas, more people will cheat and maybe even attack their government because the people have already had enough with Bushwhack.
If Obama is the same the people will revolt if things don't change and policy is being discussed covertly.
Osama ur making it hard for the people to live, if you want to be reelected in 2012 don't **** off the poor or else ur asking for it, it won't matter if ur the first black president, or first women president, if you make bad decisions then your Just as bad as Bush!
The real reason Cap & Trade is being foisted on the world is it creates a 3 trillion dollar commodity market for you guessed it: hot air. Finally politicians have found a way to put a price on their most abundant resource! And for politicians there is no downside as nothing has to be actually produced.
The real beneficiaries are the rich special interest who will get wealthier setting up and trading in this new commodities market. But citizens will pay more taxes to operate new regulatory bureaucracies and more for goods as business passes the cost along.
And all this is based on the premise that operating automobiles is resulting in global warming. Question: did Fred Flintstones truck fleet cause the last period of global warming or is global warming a cyclical event that is more affected by sun spot cycles. The Earth has had multiple tropical and glacial ages over the millennia. The most recent news is that the oceans of the world will be cooling for the next 25-30 years.
Furthermore, it is my understanding that the most prevalent hot house gas is water vapor. Should citizens of earth try to stop the rain cycle?
And if we are going to implement Cap and Trade who will decide what the optimal CO2 carrying capacity of Earth is?
And there are questions about how to implement financial controls and reliably audit such a system. Will every person and business on the planet be issued C02 permits? Is the permit an asset a business can liquidate when it goes out of business? If a business in California goes out of business and sells its CO2 permit to a company in England, will a new company in California have to find another seller to open his business and replace lost jobs? After all, if there is an optimal CO2 carrying capacity then an increasing population and more businesses means a lower standard of living and reduced CO2 allotment for each.
Upon their death can Mom and Dad leave their CO2 permits to their children? Should Mom and Dad be limited to having two children?
What about the countries that do not subscribe to Cap & Trade. Will multi-national companies export new construction and jobs to 3rd world non-subscribing countries? And the flipside, will the people of the Amazon miss out on new opportunities because an American company bought thousands of acres to be left unused to acquire carbon sequestration credits.
- by BenDoubleCrossed July 8, 2009 9:18 AM PDT
- Who Benefits from Cap and Trade
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(11 Comments)Germany fought WWII with gasoline made from coal. It is proven technology developed in 1917.
America is the Saudi Arabia of coal with 1/4th of the deposits on the planet. The US could eliminate American dependence on foreign oil.
And reducing America?s trade imbalance would keep money, technology and jobs here in America. It is estimated that every billion in trade deficit equals 13,000 US jobs lost. And we could quit sending billions to countries that sponsor terrorism.
But coal is rich in CO2. Isn?t the timing interesting? The world is in recession, US unemployment figures are hovering around 10% and the EPA determines CO2 is a pollutant that must be regulated.
SO WHO BENEFITS FROM CAP AND TRADE AND KEEPING AMERICAN COAL IN THE GROUND:
The United States agreed to transfer jobs and technology to developing countries under INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT Algiers Declaration Algiers, Algeria, 4-6 March 1975
In this context, they emphasize the necessity for the full implementation of the Programme of Action adopted by the United Nations General Assembly at its VI Special Session, and accordingly they emphasize the following requirements [excerpt from full declaration]
"With regard to the depletable natural resources, as OPEC?s petroleum resources are, it is essential that the transfer of technology must be commensurate in speed and volume with the rate of their depletion, which is being accelerated for the benefit and growth of the economies of the developed countries"
A major portion of the planned or new petrochemical complexes, oil refineries and fertilizer plants be built in the territories of OPEC Member Countries with the co-operation of industrialized nations for export purposes to the developed countries with guaranteed access for such products to the markets of these countries. [Excerpt from declaration] Read sections 10 and 11]