Dear Senator: Why you should vote against cap-and-trade

Earlier this year the U.S House of Representatives approved the Waxman-Markey bill to establish a so-called cap-and-trade program designed to reduce U.S. carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

Cap-and-trade is a gee-whiz name, but all it means is that the government would establish a total limit for annual CO2 emissions, auction or otherwise distribute ration coupons for the right to emit, and then allow the holders to buy and sell coupons in a legal secondary market.

The Senate is considering a vote on similar legislation this fall. Without regard to party or ideology, I believe that the evidence is clear that such a law, if it is anything like Waxman-Markey, would be contrary to the public interest.

For one thing, it would be a terrible deal for American taxpayers. According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s own projections, Waxman-Markey would impose annual costs of about $1,100 per household (a little less than 1 percent of total consumption) by 2050.

If the law works precisely as intended, in about 100 years we should expect surface temperatures to be about one-tenth of one degree Celsius lower than they otherwise would be. The expected costs are at least 10 times the expected benefits, even using the EPA’s cost estimates and assuming achievement of the primary goal of the legislation.

There are other reasons to be wary of Waxman-Markey as well. Contrary to early expectations that auctioning cap-and-trade permits would generate $80 billion per year of government revenue, it would not contribute materially to deficit reduction.

Because so many allowances have been given to special interests to try to get the votes needed to pass the House bill, the Congressional Budget Office now estimates it will bring in a little more than $2 billion per year over the next decade. This is about one one-thousandth of this year’s deficit.

Waxman-Markey is very unlikely to achieve even the limited benefits that are claimed for it. The details of the bill mean that there is now not a hard cap on emissions for at least the first decade of its existence.

Some argue that though Waxman-Markey isn’t perfect, it is important to set an example for other nations to follow. But the effectiveness of unilaterally cutting emissions amounts to giving away our most obvious leverage with other nations to get them to curb their greenhouse gas emissions seems questionable.

Can we seriously expect China to be guilted into sacrificing its perceived economic self-interest just because we did it first? More fundamentally, the global deal that we would theoretically be chasing isn’t even attractive, even if we assume every technical climate change prediction by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is correct.

As Capitol Hill prepares to take up climate change legislation once again, Senators should cast a far more critical eye at the chief cap-and-trade proposal than their House counterparts did in June. Waxman-Markey would impose costs at least 10 times as large as its benefits, would not reduce the deficit and wouldn’t even really cap emissions. What, then, is the point?

James Manzi is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

cap and tradeOp Edsop-edOpinion

If you find our journalism valuable and relevant, please consider joining our Examiner membership program.
Find out more at www.sfexaminer.com/join/

Just Posted

San Francisco Park Rangers have seen their budget and staffing levels increase significantly since 2014. (Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)
Citations for being in SF’s public parks after midnight soar

Data shows disproportionate impact on Black residents

Parents and students line up socially distanced before the first day of in-person learning at Bret Harte Elementary School on Monday, April 12, 2021. (Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)
‘It’s a beautiful sight’: The first students return to the classroom

San Francisco’s youngest public school students stepped into classrooms for in-person learning… Continue reading

File
Latest Breed nominee for Police Commission moves forward

Immigration attorney Jim Byrne clears Board of Supervisors committee

A rally at Golden Gate Park on Sunday April 11 drew a large crowd in support of calls to keep JFK Drive closed to traffic. (Emily Huston/Special to the S.F. Examiner)
Hundreds rally for “JFK Thrive,” not JFK Drive

By Emily Huston More than two hundred gathered on a warm Sunday… Continue reading

San Francisco Giants pitcher Anthony DeSclafani (26) starts against the Colorado Rockies at Oracle Park on April 11, 2021 in San Francisco, California. (Photography by Chris Victorio | Special to the S.F. Examiner).
Giants finish sweep of Rockies behind DeSclafani’s scoreless outing

Even with fans back at Oracle Park, San Francisco Giants pitchers have… Continue reading

Most Read