Dorgan’s Cop-Out: I Support Capping Carbon, Just Not Right Now

Proof • July 21, 2009

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.

Tags: Asshats, Domestic Issues, North Dakota News, Politics

http://Array bill-tb

America solved two things to let our economy prosper and expand … Cheap food, and cheap energy. ZERO wants to take both of those things down. We can then be like the rest of the world, spending all of our time looking for food, and going nowhere.

Remember Odummer’s speech about eating as much as we want and driving SUVs whenever we want, he meant it. Why weren’t Americans listening.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Well at least Dorgan’s smart enough to realize that it’s very unpopular in ND.
badlands4

I am on his newsletter listing, and I essentially got this same thing, although I don’t know if it is word for word as the op-ed, but One of the things I find puzzling about this whole thing, is the trade part of this. *IF* you believe that we need to cap emissions, then you cap them. Allowing the excess to be traded doesn’t seem to *me* as if it is going to accomplish the first goal of capping the emissions. The emissions won’t go down, they will just switch hands via trading, so what is the point other than to find a new tax to levy?

Maybe I am reading the bill’s intent incorrectly
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

The emissions won’t go down, they will just switch hands via trading, so what is the point other than to find a new tax to levy?

It provides polluters with an incentive to voluntarily drop emissions. Then they cal “sell” their pollution rights to someone else. It’s a gentle way of encouraging voluntary behavior. It’s already being used with other pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

Simply capping emissions is a much harsher way of doing things.

Here’s an old article that might illuminate but I doubt it.

Pollution credit trading market sets its first auction for January.
Jay

So he has at least ONE thing in common with Palin. Although to Palin’s credit, she’s too dumb to have known what she was talking about during the VP debates.
http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon

Well at least Dorgan’s smart enough to realize that it’s very unpopular in ND.

I think senator comb over isn’t getting the message that we don’t want cap and trade in any shape or form. Sounds like Dorgan is parsing words to play to his fellow liberal senators.
jimmypop

It provides polluters with an incentive to voluntarily drop emissions. Then they cal “sell” their pollution rights to someone else. It’s a gentle way of encouraging voluntary behavior. It’s already being used with other pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

Simply capping emissions is a much harsher way of doing things.

Here’s an old article that might illuminate but I doubt it.

Pollution credit trading market sets its first auction for January.

question; when do the prices of movie tickets go down?
Brent

It provides polluters with an incentive to voluntarily drop emissions.

The “incentive” is that the government doesn’t seize your business and levy massive fines and jail time, which will result in you being beaten and ultimately killed if you try to resist. All to stop you from emitting carbon dioxide, which everyone, including and especially the government, also emits.

Yeah, you’re right. “Voluntary” is definitely a good way to describe it.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

The “incentive” is that the government doesn’t seize your business and levy massive fines and jail time, which will result in you being beaten and ultimately killed if you try to resist.

Actually, the enforcement of environmental crimes is sporadic and not as dramatic as you describe it. Polluters appeal, get fines reduced or flatly refuse to pay them.

In our enthusiasm to bend over backwards for business (or forward in the case of republicans-give them a better shot at the hole) the government often allows pollution with impunity.

Here’s hoping your kids deeply inhale as much airborne environmental contamination as possible. Your kind fights all efforts at controlling pollution so it’s only fair that your loved ones bear the brunt of the effects.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Dorgan’s Cop-Out: I Support Capping Carbon, Just Not Right Now

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments