McCain’s Cap and Trade Plan Would Hurt the U.S.

John McCain’s bold, ‘market-based” solution to global warming amounts to nothing more than a tax on energy. The Heritage Foundation released a study on the effects a similar plan proposed by Senators Liebermand and Warner. That plan proposes to cut CO₂ emissions by 70% by mid century. The expected results? Typical:

Implementing S. 2191 will be very costly, even given the most generous assumptions. To put a firm floor under the cost estimates, we assume that all of the problems of meeting currently enacted federal, state, and local legislation are overcome. A further unlikely condition is added; namely, that a critical but unproven technology–carbon capture and sequestration–will be ready for full-scale commer­cial use in just 10 years.[1] Making a more reasonable assumption about just this one technology leads to dramatically higher (but by no means worst-case) costs.[2] We use these two cases to bracket our cost projections of S. 2191:

• Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses are at least $1.7 trillion and could reach $4.8 tril­lion by 2030 (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).
• Single-year GDP losses hit at least $155 billion and realistically could exceed $500 billion (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).
• Annual job losses exceed 500,000 before 2030 and could approach 1,000,000.
  The annual cost of emission permits to energy users will be at least $100 billion by 2020 and could exceed $300 billion by 2030 (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).[3]
• The average household will pay $467 more each year for its natural gas and electricity (in infla­tion-adjusted 2006 dollars). That means that the average household will spend an additional $8,870 to purchase household energy over the period 2012 through 2030.

Our analysis does not extend beyond 2030, at which point S. 2191 mandates GHG reductions to 33 percent below the 2005 level. However, it should be noted that the mandated GHG reductions con­tinue to become more severe and must be 70 per­cent below the 2005 level by 2050.

McCain’s plan is not much different than this one, and considering he also co-sponsored global warming legislation with Lieberman, one would think he would sign this bill if president. One of the biggest issues with the plan is the fact that the technology needed simply doesn’t exist.

Writing in Townhall, Robert Bluey quotes details the flaws in McCain’s plan:

McCain cites the success of the 1990 sulfur dioxide cap-and-trade system as evidence that his plan would work. “The key feature of this mechanism is that it allows the market to decide and encourage the lowest-cost compliance options,” McCain said. However, there are important distinctions between combating acid rain though cap and trade vs. carbon dioxide.

When the acid rain cap-and-trade system was added to the Clean Air Act, the technology to reduce sulfur dioxide was already in commercial use.

There’s nothing comparable for carbon dioxide. The method, known as carbon capture and sequestration, is still in development. Carbon storage, as it’s also called, “requires capturing carbon dioxide from power plants and other industrial facilities, transporting it to suitable locations, injecting it into deep underground geological formations, and monitoring its behavior,” according to the World Resources Institute.

There’s no clear evidence that carbon capture and sequestration will be ready for full-scale commercial use 10 years from now. Without this technology, the goals outlined by McCain and those included in the Lieberman-Warner bill cannot be accomplished.

Seeing this, McCain’s response is to turn to the government:

“For the market to do more, government must do more by opening new paths of invention and ingenuity,” McCain said in Portland, Ore., drawing a sharp distinction from the conservative philosophy of former President Ronald Reagan, who famously said, “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

Is there any wonder McCain is being rejected by the conservative base? Is there any wonder Republicans are losing seats they have held for decades? It is the rejection of traditional conservative values that is driving this, and will result is a Democrat in the White House, a Democrat Congress with enough votes to stifle any opposition and liberal appointments to the Supreme Court.

I don’t mean to sound the Doomsday signal, but the more the Republicans embrace the left, the less there is to be optimistic about. Is there anyone in Congress right now that will lead the new Republican Revolution? Is there anyone out there who is more concerned with doing what is right, instead of getting re-elected?

If there is, they are quiet.