When seeking paths for creating an environment for a prosperous America in the reality of a carbon-constrained future, many see the most business friendly general approach as “Cap & Trade”. Society (politicians) determine a “cap”, a top level, of total emissions and then people (businesses) can buy and trade emissions totaling to that cap. This enables the economy, through a market of carbon pollution permits, to find the most cost effective paths for keeping total pollution loads at or below the total economy’s cap. And, the legislation that the House passed and legislation under consideration in the Senate is even more business friendly, handing out emissions permits to free for serial polluters like oil refineries and coal-fired electricity producers.
Distributed to Republican National Committee member, a draft “pledge” to be signed by all Republican candidates.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:
Included in the “pledge” is the following ‘principle’
(3) Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
What is so interesting is that “cap and trade,” itself relies on a “market based” approach to find the most cost effective ways to reduce emissions and, itself, creates a whole new market space of using emissions trading as a path to lower the cost of complying with regulation about carbon pollution. This “market-based” approach to reducing coal-fired electricity emissions that were the primary culprit behind acid rain fostered much lower costs to reduce emissions while achieving higher societal gains than were expected when the original legislation passed.
Note 1: Now, there is something notable about the proposed Republican political pledge: there is no demand for rejection of science via denial of global warming as a fundamental issue. The pledge challenges Cap & Trade, likely inappropriately, as somehow business-unfriendly rather than creating a formal anti-science pledge requiring candidates to deny the science related to the Theory of Global Warming, acidification of the oceans, and other items related to the potential for catastrophic climate change. While called a “conservative” manifesto, this would seem not to meet the growing share of the Republican base who are ever more strongly rejecting science.
Note 2: As for “business friendly”, there is reason to debate what is the most sensible approach to hastening moves to a low-carbon economy in the face of the potential for catastrophic climate change. To a certain extent this is theological, but there are real benefits for a carbon fee (incorrectly described as a “tax”) and benefits for using a “cap” with trading of emissions. Truth be told, the better path is likely a combination of both. In any event, the most anti-business approach is to reject creating a business environment that will lead to US leadership in a clean energy future.