Say Anything Blog

Byron Dorgan, in a transparently self-serving maneuver, explains how he arrived at his opposition to the current cap and trade carbon tax being debated in Congress.  It’s not because he opposes capping carbon emissions.  Oh no, he’s on board with government control of carbon which - given that everything we do results in carbon emission - translates into government control of everything.  It’s just that he doesn’t think it’s good right now.

Dorgan penned an op-ed piece that ran in the Bismarck Tribune on Sunday against the current version, primarily arguing against the proposed carbon dioxide market and the potential for dangerous speculation to emerge.

“I support capping carbon emissions,” Dorgan wrote. “But it has to be done the right way, with targets and timelines that allow us to accomplish our goals without driving the cost of energy for homeowners and businesses out of sight.”

Let’s remember that America’s power is cheap because we have some of the largest coal deposits in the world.  A significant chunk of those deposits residing right here in North Dakota.  Coal provides roughly 51% of the power for the nation’s power grid.  Burning coal for power, however, releases a lot of carbon into the atmosphere.  If the government caps carbon emissions coal power will either get significantly more expensive or it will cease to exist.

In either case, our utility bills (and not to mention the cost of goods and services across the economy) would go through the roof.  Now, we have centuries of coal reserves available to us.  I’m wondering at what point in the future Dorgan thinks it would be ok to cap carbon emissions and essentially end the usefulness of those reserves?

Of course, Dorgan has a solution for that too.  He calls it “cap and dividend.”  And what’s that?  Basically the government would still implement a cap and trade carbon tax, but the proceeds of that tax would be redistributed back to the public.

Why would that be a good thing?  According to Dorgan it would offset the economic impact of the cap and trade carbon tax by giving the money back to the people hit by it.  But that’s not going to be very efficient.  After all, which angels in government do we trust to ensure that the wealth seized by a cap and trade carbon tax would be redistributed back to the public fairly?  In proportion to how hard they’re hit by the tax in the first place?  And wouldn’t the government take a cut for administering this wealth redistribution?

And, frankly, wouldn’t it be easier just to not tax at all so that energy prices stay low?

Dorgan’s solution is ridiculous.  But then, I don’t think Dorgan really expects it to be implemented.  I think he’s just looking for an excuse not to anger his coal-loving constituency without also abandoning his liberal proclivities.