Rep. Bishop: When it comes to cap-and-trade, give federalism a chance
Daily Caller
Supporters of cap-and-trade often make bold claims about climate change legislation. Rapturous-sounding rhetoric such as “this legislation will create jobs by the millions, save money by the billions and unleash investment in clean energy by the trillions [1],” is common in the cap-and-trade debate. Indeed, proponents typically describe cap-and-trade as the equivalent of a giant magic job Pez dispenser.
I am convinced they are wrong. Cap-and-trade legislation will only cap our economy and trade American jobs overseas. There are many devastating analyses of the costs and effectiveness of cap-and-trade legislation. Let me share just one.
The Danish academic and author, Bjorn Lomborg, has found that even if the entire industrialized world enacted U.S. style cap and trade legislation, world temperatures would drop by only 0.22 degrees by 2100 [2]. Meanwhile, Jim Manzi, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute calculates the “expected costs” of cap-and-trade to the American people are “at least 10 times the expected benefits [3].” President Obama himself acknowledged that, “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket [4].”
In other words, cap-and-trade will raise the price of gasoline, electricity, food, and just about everything else, destroy millions of jobs, prolong the recession, and all that for just 0.22 degrees temperature reduction by 2100! If the banker phoned in with this offer, like most Americans, I would respond, “No deal.”
I recognize there are many who do not reach the same policy conclusions I do. In fact, there are a good number of individuals who believe that intentionally increasing energy costs during a recession is necessary. They are genuinely convinced that imposing a complicated web of new federal mandates and “green” regulations will lead to an economic renaissance.
