Cap and trade is built upon the sand

Now that summer recess is over for Congress and our elected officials are in D.C., cap and trade is back in the news.

[BottleRocket]

"When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural gas…you name it…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations.

That will cost money…they will pass that money on to the consumers."

Barack Obama to the San Francisco Chronicle, January 2008.

[liberty]

Great article! This cap and trade bill needs to DIE!

[Diego]

It is amazing to me that the Sun News continues to publish anything by Ms. Noon. She has been totally discredited for submitting dishonest and inaccurate OpEds. As a result, some media outlets now refuse to publish her articles. The Sun News should follow their good example.

[East Mesa Democrat]

Diego wrote:

It is amazing to me that the Sun News continues to publish anything by Ms. Noon. She has been totally discredited for submitting dishonest and inaccurate OpEds. As a result, some media outlets now refuse to publish her articles. The Sun News should follow their good example.

Why? The Sun News continues to publish Mike Hays and Bill Varuola even though they submit dishonest, inaccurate and racist OpEds.

[fierisq]

Just to clarify to readers, the $1,761 figure is completely false. That number came from a March 2009 report from the Treasury Department which was based on a cost-estimate of an out-dated, abandoned cap-and-trade plan that immediately auctioned 100% of carbon allowances with no redistribution or cost-cutting. The American Clean Energy and Security Act does not do this. The current bill allocates 85% of credits freely, and uses the money collected to alleviate energy prices for consumers and businesses. The $1,761 figure would be accurate if all the permits were auctioned and the bill required the government to shred the money and throw it all away. But only a small portion of the credits are being sold initially, and the money is getting reallocated.

Want some links concerning this incorrect price tag?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/20090...

Ms. Noon, contrary to your belief, the costs of fighting greenhouse gas pollution are modest and manageable, as laid on in the analyses of climate change legislation coming to the Senate floor from the CBO, EIA and EPA. Opponents of climate change legislation cite vastly higher costs than those that CBO and EPA are reporting, but these claims are deeply flawed in two respects. First, they fail to distinguish between gross and net costs — that is, they simply ignore the substantial relief the legislation provides to consumers to help offset the higher energy costs they otherwise would face. Second, the analyses rely on outdated estimates of other cap-and-trade proposals that do not accurately reflect the provisions of the current legislation.

Even the Wall Street Journal reports that “the Waxman-Markey climate bill makes economic sense, offering benefits worth at least twice as much as it costs, if not more.� http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/200... . This week, the Institute for Policy Integrity released a policy brief titled, The Other Side of the Coin: The Economic Benefits of Climate Legislation http://cts.vresp.com/c/... . Compiling estimates from several different federal agencies, IPI was able to calculate that the economic benefits of the emissions cap in the Waxman-Markey bill likely dwarf the costs by as much as 9-to-1 or more.

I find it amazing that as an energy worker you could claim that oil is cheap. In 2006, American consumers and businesses spent $921 billion—or close to 7 percent of America’s gross domestic product—on fossil fuels, more than the nation spends on education or the military. In 2008, national expenditures on fossil fuels topped $1 trillion for the first time ever. Each year, more than 70 percent of this money is spent on oil. In 2007, America spent more than $360 billion importing fossil fuels, with the vast majority of that money spent on crude oil. That money is a direct transfer of wealth from American consumers to oil companies and foreign governments.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/fore... .

The costs of continuing on our current energy path are enormously steep. However, under the climate bill we can invest a modest amount now – about a dime a day, according to a recent EPA analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill – and get cleaner air, greater energy security, and new energy jobs.

[fierisq]

In addition, your assertion that “climate change is a lie” is a moot one, since it has already been scientifically proven that it is not a lie. You actually think that people are going to believe some Op-Ed contributor who has no background or degree in science, over the thousands of scientists from across the globe who have contributed studies and findings to the IPCC based on the most up to date scientific, technical and socio-economic information from around the world? Oh and not to mention all of those rigorously tested and analyzed supporting reports from credible organizations such as NAS, NOAA, NCAR, NASA, EPA, and Pew Research Center to name a few. Ms. Noon, the most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and that people are causing it by burning fossil fuels and cutting down our forests. The world’s top scientists, experts, agencies and research institutions have come together and provided a balance of evidence which proves not only that there is a discernible human influence on global climate, but also that human influences will continue to change atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century.

Secondly, your argument that the crisis can wait a few more years is very incorrect. There is a growing understanding that ignoring climate change is the most costly and dangerous course for our economy. Delaying action for even a short time carries a steep price. Greenhouse gases sit in the atmosphere for at least 50 years, perhaps as long as centuries. And each year we pour billions more tons into the air. That means that the longer we take to start cutting emissions, the more expensive the task becomes. Delay also means lost opportunity. Without a dependable price signal – and therefore a steady demand – for energy efficient and renewable technologies, the U.S. risks missing a chance to get ahead of the world in innovative technologies. Concerned citizens have been making noise about it for the last forty years for a reason – they are tired of paying more for rising insurance rates, greater government spending to maintain public infrastructure, agricultural damage from droughts, the spread of insect-borne disease, increased international instability, and more intense hurricanes and storms due to the changing climate.

You say that now is not the time because it will “finish off the American economy.” In fact Ms. Noon, it is quite the opposite. The cap on greenhouse gas would spur investment in American ingenuity to develop and deliver the next generation of clean technologies – what we’ll need for the U.S. to be a leader in the new low-carbon economy. For 150 years, the U.S. has led the world in major technological innovations, and we can’t afford to sit out the next round. The world is moving to a low-carbon economy and if we wait to enact a nation-wide policy, the U.S. risks sending the next generation of good jobs and huge profits overseas – and being shut out of the market altogether. Without strong demand for climate solutions at home, the U.S. risks losing out on these promising and robust new markets as companies choose to move overseas where demand is higher.

You think that countries overseas aren’t participating in this new market? You are gravely mistaken. You may not believe that global warming is real but “Here is what is indisputable: The world is on track to add another 2.5 billion people by 2050, and many will be aspiring to live American-like, high-energy lifestyles. In such a world, renewable energy…will be in huge demand. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/opinion/16f... .”

Want more proof on how China is now creating a massive domestic market for solar and wind?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/... .
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/opinion/09f...

[fierisq]

In addition, your assertion that “climate change is a lie� is a moot one, since it has already been scientifically proven that it is not a lie. You actually think that people are going to believe some Op-Ed contributor who has no background or degree in science, over the thousands of scientists from across the globe who have contributed studies and findings to the IPCC based on the most up to date scientific, technical and socio-economic information from around the world? Oh and not to mention all of those rigorously tested and analyzed supporting reports from credible organizations such as NAS, NOAA, NCAR, NASA, EPA, and Pew Research Center to name a few. Ms. Noon, the most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and that people are causing it by burning fossil fuels and cutting down our forests. The world’s top scientists, experts, agencies and research institutions have come together and provided a balance of evidence which proves not only that there is a discernible human influence on global climate, but also that human influences will continue to change atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century.

Secondly, your argument that the crisis can wait a few more years is very incorrect. There is a growing understanding that ignoring climate change is the most costly and dangerous course for our economy. Delaying action for even a short time carries a steep price. Greenhouse gases sit in the atmosphere for at least 50 years, perhaps as long as centuries. And each year we pour billions more tons into the air. That means that the longer we take to start cutting emissions, the more expensive the task becomes. Delay also means lost opportunity. Without a dependable price signal – and therefore a steady demand – for energy efficient and renewable technologies, the U.S. risks missing a chance to get ahead of the world in innovative technologies. Concerned citizens have been making noise about it for the last forty years for a reason – they are tired of paying more for rising insurance rates, greater government spending to maintain public infrastructure, agricultural damage from droughts, the spread of insect-borne disease, increased international instability, and more intense hurricanes and storms due to the changing climate.

You say that now is not the time because it will “finish off the American economy.� In fact Ms. Noon, it is quite the opposite. The cap on greenhouse gas would spur investment in American ingenuity to develop and deliver the next generation of clean technologies – what we’ll need for the U.S. to be a leader in the new low-carbon economy. For 150 years, the U.S. has led the world in major technological innovations, and we can’t afford to sit out the next round. The world is moving to a low-carbon economy and if we wait to enact a nation-wide policy, the U.S. risks sending the next generation of good jobs and huge profits overseas – and being shut out of the market altogether. Without strong demand for climate solutions at home, the U.S. risks losing out on these promising and robust new markets as companies choose to move overseas where demand is higher.

You think that countries overseas aren’t participating in this new market? You are gravely mistaken. You may not believe that global warming is real but “Here is what is indisputable: The world is on track to add another 2.5 billion people by 2050, and many will be aspiring to live American-like, high-energy lifestyles. In such a world, renewable energy…will be in huge demand. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/opinion/16f... .�

Want more proof on how China is now creating a massive domestic market for clean energy?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/... .
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/opinion/09f...

[Dave in LC]

She's just another global warming denier. Speaking of sand, why don't you pull your head out of it.

[JRey]

Before you take Marita's article too seriously, I'd read this first: http://abqjournalwatch.com/2009/09/09/dishone...

[Dave in LC]

Cap and trade is a good thing. If your company produces less than the cap for carbon emissions, it can sell carbon credits to companies that don't want to limit their carbon output. If your company sells carbon credits to big polluting companies, that's more profit for greener companies. Does anybody know what the carbon emissions status is for El Paso Electric Co.? Will they be selling carbon credits, or buying them?

[billymac]

Dave in LC wrote:

Cap and trade is a good thing. If your company produces less than the cap for carbon emissions, it can sell carbon credits to companies that don't want to limit their carbon output. If your company sells carbon credits to big polluting companies, that's more profit for greener companies. Does anybody know what the carbon emissions status is for El Paso Electric Co.? Will they be selling carbon credits, or buying them?

Whatever EPE's status is, we'll all be paying a helluva lot more for electricity (and EVERYTHING else) if cap and trade is passed.

[jimbob]

Dave in LC wrote:

Cap and trade is a good thing. If your company produces less than the cap for carbon emissions, it can sell carbon credits to companies that don't want to limit their carbon output. If your company sells carbon credits to big polluting companies, that's more profit for greener companies. Does anybody know what the carbon emissions status is for El Paso Electric Co.? Will they be selling carbon credits, or buying them?

FYI, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant!

As for benefits, not everyone sees any from the Cap and Tax bill.

"The legislation itself is enormous. It’s more than a thousand pages long, filled with obscure provisions that will keep an army of lobbyists employed for years. It’s been resoundingly panned both by groups on the left, such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, who see it as an enormous corporate giveaway, and by Republicans, who accuse it of being a massive tax that will hobble the U.S. economy. It even was attacked by the powerful farm lobby, despite a cornucopia of goodies added in the last few days to get their champion, House Agriculture Chairman Collin C. Peterson (D-Minn.), on board."