The American public continues to get a little truth and a lot of error in the global warming debate which is closely attached to the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, also know as the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Bill.  Most Americans know a little about global warming, but almost nothing about Cap and Trade.  In childhood stories Chicken Little proclaimed the sky is falling.  In adult circles the drama over global warming and climate change has echoed “floods and fears” for a long time.  Al Gore, a global warming mainstay reported in this year’s New York Times of the future effects of global warming that “sea levels will rise and monster storms will come.”  The question remains, “Is it true that global warming is happening and if it is, can it be stopped by Cap and Trade or other measures?”

In his article, “In Denial,” Steven Hayward details concern about the concept of global warming, not from his reports, but from sources in the mix.  Documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (England) showed unethical behavior, errors, and “serial” exaggerations on climate science.  The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is under fire for poor work and the U.S. Climate Action Partnership is falling apart.  The destruction of the Amazon Rain forest from climatic change it said to be “without scientific foundation.”  Even the IPCC contradicted its report published in 2008 saying “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.”  This list goes on and one can read more here.

Even PEW research has recorded a drop in global warming concerns by the American public from 71% to 56% in 18 months (April 2008 – October 2009).  Gallup polls also show a decline in global warming concerns even citing people  to believe it is exaggerated.  Satellite temperature studies have found little temperature change in the middle and upper atmosphere since 1979.  There is much disagreement and little hard evidence to support global warming in relation to weather and land events.

Why does this all matter?  The historic June 26, 2009 American Clean Air and Energy Bill was passed (219-212) to address pollution and global warming concerns through the reduction of green house gas emissions.   The bill was passed in the morning hours with a 300 page amendment added that few read after being introduced at 3:47 am, with the bill’s passage at 11:21 a.m. Coupled with America’s preoccupation of the previous day’s death of Michael Jackson, this is one such bill that deserves greater scrutiny from the American public. 

What is Cap and Trade?                                                                                          

The Cap and Trade Bill’s goal is to over time reduce carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions in an economic wide way and in a cost effective way.   Few would disagree this is a bad thing.  Carbon dioxide emissions come from fuel burning sources (the top way the world gets energy), which some say increase global warming and deforestation of the Amazon and the Tropics.   Even our beloved animals are polluters as methane gas comes from cows.  Yes, their burps, farts, and waste decomposition all factor into gas emissions. 

The Plan

Every large scale emitter or company will have a limit or “cap” on greenhouse emissions.  The company will need a permit for every ton of carbon dioxide it releases in the atmosphere.  These permits “cap” and put a limit on pollution the company will emit.  The limits get stricter over time until the reduction goal is met.  The Clean Air Act of 1990 reduced sulphur emissions and was effective both at accomplishing its goals and in a cost reducing manner; however, the new bill will be way more involved.

The federal government will decide how much and what company can pollute in the form of a license or credit.  If a company is below the “cap” allowed they have “credits” to trade with another business.  If they are above the “cap,” they must buy “credits” to pollute.  It is like a penalty or fine to encourage reduction of emissions.  Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?  However, the federal government is going to offer an exchange of these “credits” at a cost to businesses to conduct business, some may even be issued “credits” to pollute or the federal government would create a market to auction these “credits”.  This would only mean more government control and involvement as they decide levels of allowable pollution, with costs borne by the consumer that businesses must bear in supplying goods and services.   It is suspected billions of dollars would be flowing through this coiffeur handled by brokers and others assigned to this new marketplace.

Europe has Cap and Trade under Kyoto Protocol called European Union Emission Trading System (EU ETS) and they have found significant costs to the program while failing to reduce emissions.  In fact, some countries even have higher emissions after the attempt to implement.  Energy and fuel costs have gone way up.  Even though Europeans say this is a baseline start and things will improve, many objectives are far from being met.  With the trading of permits in this new market many feel the government leaves it open to fraudulent use of business and tax payer money.

Factored in this bill is the desire to join globally in pollution reduction which is where this is all headed. The fear of global warming has led to this as an answer to redeem the planet.  Cheers to those who want to reduce pollution, but the problem is wide and high.  China and India are great polluters and future polluters who are anticipated to have a huge amount of world emissions by 2030. Trading with other nations and saying who can pollute and who can not will be difficult if not impossible to decide.

Our economy is giving more way to the government.  Think for a minute, the automobile and banking industry, health care, and energy, all these have a governmental hand on them or will have.  Whose money bailed out GM, whose money bailed out the banking mishap—the US taxpayer?  There is plenty good reason to trust that the Cap and Trade Bill is just a redistribution of money—the US taxpayer’s money. Though we must be stewards of our environment, this bill does not appear to accomplish that.   Cap and Trade quietly parades as a global warming solution but it will create economic problems unto its own where the consumer looks to be the loser, again.