Cap and Trade

The slumbering greenhouse gas bill in the Senate should never rise again. It’s bad policy for the federal government to set a cap for greenhouse gas emissions then create a market for trading emitting rights. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a laudable idea. When a clear majority of experts in the field agree that global warming is a threat, it's time for action. Only it would be a misguided action to create a $7 trillion government-run market by the year 2050, which is what the bill’s co-author Joe Lieberman expects to do. Judging from the history of government-run programs this new colossus will undoubtedly become bureaucratic, opaque and ripe with opportunity for lobbyist shenanigans at the public's expense.

Moreover, a market for trading carbon emissions is bad for the environment. Inherent in any market is a prejudice for continuing the use of what's being traded. President Bush said, "America is addicted to oil." No matter how stringent the carbon cap, a junkie with $7 trillion in his pocket will never kick the habit.

If government must act, placing a straightforward tax based on a fuel's carbon content would be better than sprouting a complex $7 trillion boondoggle. It would be better still for Congress to leave fossil fuels alone and instead create tax incentives for nuclear power; a cheap and carbon free source of energy.

No matter how many new and sophisticated devices are invented for sanitizing carbon emissions, burning fossil fuels will never be a cleaner source of energy than nuclear. Dr. Arthur Rosenfeld is a California Energy Commissioner and Enrico Fermi Award winning physicist. He said it will take nuclear power and more energy conservation to meet the nation's energy demands while addressing global warming at the same time. Creating a $7 trillion market that would favor fossil fuels over nuclear power just forestalls the inevitable.

A $7 trillion market favoring fossil fuels is bad for national security, too. Nuclear power could help win the War on Terror without endangering a single soldier. We're at war with terrorists whose funding ultimately derives from oil and natural gas revenues. If we build more nuclear plants, we reduce demand for oil and natural gas. If we reduce demand, we reduce the price. If we reduce the price, we reduce funding for terrorism. If we reduce funding for terrorism, we reduce the number of terrorists. Therefore, nuclear power could help win the War on Terror.

In Saturday's AP story on Lieberman's bill it said -- "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested it [the bill] would fare better next year with a new president." I've read nothing to suggest she's wrong. Too bad.