And the editors at the paper can’t find anything in McCain’s plan that makes it all that distinguishable from what Barack Obama wants to do.
When a Republican policy is lining up with the policy of the most liberal Senator in the US Senate, there’s a problem.
The latest stop on John McCain’s policy tour came at an Oregon wind-turbine manufacturer, where the topic was – what else? – the Senator’s plan to address climate change. This is one of those issues where Mr. McCain indulges his “maverick” tendencies, which usually means taking the liberal line. That was the case yesterday, no matter how frequently he claimed his approach was “market based.”
In fact, if “the market” is your favored mechanism, Mr. McCain’s endorsement of a “cap and trade” system is the worst choice for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. . . .
Then there’s cap and trade, which Mr. McCain has backed for years and would, as he put it with some understatement, “change the dynamic of our energy economy.” He noted that Americans have a genius for problem-solving but continued, “The federal government can’t just summon these talents by command – only the free market can draw them out.” To translate: His plan is “market based” insofar as it requires an expensive, invasive government bureaucracy to interfere with the market.
Only a “maverick” like McCain would have the gall to call a government-run system of tax breaks and subsidies a “free market” environment.
My problem with a cap-and-trade policy is this: Who gets to set the cap? Obviously each company and politician involved in this debate has their own opinion, who who is right? How do we know that these caps aren’t going to cripple our nation’s industries and leave us citizens dealing with brownouts, shortages and worse?
As an example, what if each citizen in the country was given an oxygen quota based on his/her level of oxygen use? Sedentary people would have a lower quota. More active people would have a higher quota. People going over their quota would have to pay a penalty, or buy credits from someone who hasn’t used up their quota. That may sound fair, but what if one of the sedentary people wants to change his/her life? What if they want to get more active in order to be more productive at work, or just live a healthier lifestyle? There would be less incentive to do so because exceeding their quota would be costly.
The simple truth of our economy is that higher productivity has a higher carbon footprint. Until alternative energy sources are truly ready for the market that’s just the way it’s going to be. Introducing a cap-and-trade system would only serve as a hurdle to productivity.
Which is exactly why big business wants a cap-and-trade system. Huge corporations can afford the compliance costs associated with a cap-and-trade system. Small businesses which compete with the huge corporations of the world can’t.