Democrats and liberals often divide the world between industries they like (Hollywood, Wall Street, Silicon Valley) and industries they don’t like (coal, oil, pharmaceuticals). Industries they don’t like get the word “Big” prefixed to their name: Big Coal, Big Oil, Big Pharma.
Big Coal you might think would be the very most detested industry. It emits climate-distorting carbon dioxide, chews up mountains and spews runoff into lakes and rivers, causes Black Lung disease etc. All very bad. Democrats object to all these things. But still … that’s no reason to deny these industries free money when they ask for it!
President Obama’s budget plans rest on the assumption that his carbon emissions plan will raise hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10 years. The president’s plan envisions a limit or cap on the total amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted. Rights to emit such gases, notably carbon dioxide, will be auctioned off, with proceeds collected by the federal government. The plan assumes that the largest sector purchaser of such rights would be coal-burning electrical utilities. Electricity generation accounts for about 40% of the nation’s carbon emission, with 93% of that 40% coming from coal.
But guess what? Democrats from coal-producing states are stepping up for their industry. I’m looking at a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee from coal-state Democrats requesting a
free allowance allocation to the utility sector of 40 percent, consistent with the sector’s share of CO2 emissions … [plus an additional free allowance for coal users in the] industrial sector …
Both these free allowances are to be permanent.
In other words, while the rest of the economy would have to pay for the right to emit carbon dioxides, coal users would not.
But wait: the deal gets better!
The right to emit can be sold. It’s not quite cash, but very nearly as good. Under “pure” cap and trade, emitters can resell any quota they purchase but do not use. That’s supposed to incentivize innovation and conservation. But under the coal Democrats scheme, where emissions quotas would be allocated for free, these quotas would amount to a free grant of commercially valuable rights.
Now that’s what you call constituent service.
3 responses so far
1 joemarier // Apr 27, 2009 at 1:01 pm
From everything I’ve read, cap and trade has more to do with trading economic/political favors in the name of the environment, than it has to do with increasing revenues to pay off the deficit. Unfortunately, the Democrats have a pretty strong tradition of opposing consumption taxes. They aren’t going to implement them without paying off the states that vote their way. A straightforward carbon tax just won’t happen.
2 barker13 // Apr 27, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Yeah, Beck was talking about this the other day.
Would the MSM go along with this, provide cover? Certain Arlen Specter would, right…??? (*SHRUG*) What other Republicans?
BILL
3 kroner // Apr 27, 2009 at 5:07 pm
There are a lot of entrenched interest groups that have disproportionate influence over lawmakers, often to the detriment of good national policy, and you are right to decry that. We shouldn’t stand for that, or for politicians who allow themselves to be so overtly influenced.
But painting this as a strictly Democratic problem is not taking honest stock of the issue. The reason these few Democratic congresspeople might successfully be able to subvert cap-and-trade is that the rest of the party desperately needs their votes to get this legislation passed. That’s because nearly the entire Republican delegation opposes it altogether. And why do most Republicans in Congress oppose cap-and-trade? The main reason is that they too bow to will of the coal, oil and gas industries. They just have better cover since the party has been weaving this into their platform for decades.
You must log in to post a comment.