Oil Spill Muddies the Water for Passing Climate Legislation

PrintEmail

With any disaster comes opportunity. And while it is difficult to see any silver lining right now through the oil-slicked, devastated waters of the Gulf of Mexico, something good may come of the spill. It may help stop a highly problematic piece of legislation--the American Power Act, better known as the cap-and-trade bill. 
 
First, this bill will prove to be one of the largest taxes ever imposed upon the American people. The premise of a cap-and-trade program or any other climate policy geared towards reducing greenhouse gases is to raise the price of fossil fuel derived energy. This is supposed to shift our economy toward the more expensive renewable energy sources. What some politicians seem to not understand is that energy is the lifeblood of our economy. An energy tax like cap-and-trade will increase the price of all goods in the economy during one of the worst recessions our nation has ever seen. This will cause significant economic damage and have a negative impact on our standard of living.
 
It will also likely do nothing to combat the perceived problem of climate change. Even assuming the doomsday scenarios of human-caused climate change, it has been shown that a unilateral effort to reduce greenhouse gases will have no measurable effect on global temperatures. Estimates show that by 2050 the greenhouse gas reductions as mandated in the cap-and-trade bill would only result in a global temperature “savings” of about .05 degrees Celsius--a scientifically meaningless pursuit.
 
The cap-and-trade bill has been on the U.S. Senate’s table since June 2009, when the House passed its version. Democratic Senators John Kerry (Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (Calif.) introduced a Senate version of the bill on Sept. 30, 2009, but it gained no traction. Reasons ranged from an upcoming election cycle to attention being diverted to health care and immigration reform. 
 
And climate change policy--like so much else these days--is a partisan issue, which means mustering up the 60 votes has been a battle. Democrats are generally in favor of attempting to reduce human-emitted greenhouse gases and Republicans are generally against such legislation. So in return, Republicans on the fence about the climate legislation want increased access to domestic oil drilling and to expand nuclear power generation. Middle-of-the-road Democrats have to be convinced that this is the right path for the nation, and many Republicans and Democrats alike want to be convinced that this legislation won’t devastate the already weakened economy. 
 
No easy feat. But with the renewed determination of Senators Kerry and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), the sponsors of the latest iteration, it might have been accomplished. And this is where the oil spill comes into play--just not as you might expect.
 
When the BP oil rig exploded, dumping massive amounts of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, environmental groups and other left leaning policy organizations seized this opportunity to convince the American public that “clean” energy legislation is needed now not later. 
 
But if they think the spill will help gather the needed votes to pass a cap-and-trade bill, they are wrong.
 
Far left senators have come out denouncing any climate legislation that contains domestic drilling provisions--the very stipulation the hope for bipartisan support of climate legislation hinged on. What seemed like a disaster that would solidify efforts to pass the bill will actually impede the process by making the debate even more partisan than before. 
 
After that statement, half of the American population will gasp in disappointment and the other half will sigh in relief. 
 
Perhaps this is the opportunity to take a step back and evaluate what we are trying to accomplish with a cap-and-trade bill. Instead of charging ahead towards economic destruction, it is worth pausing to weigh and discuss the costs and benefits of policies geared towards reducing the small amount of greenhouse gases coming from economic activity in the United States. Addressing a speculative claim of higher global temperatures in 100 years ought to come with debate on whether the cure is worse than the proclaimed disease.  
 
Read more from YPNation on nuclear energy policy
 
(Photo credit: U.S. Navy/Patrick Nichols)