Recently I wrote Dan Boren (the Representitive to Congress for this district) a letter expressing my disappointment that he did not have the foresight and courage to support the Cap and Trade Bill. Yes it is a flawed bill, as all are, but it will be a big step in the right direction.
This is his response to my letter.
Dear Mr. Magady:
Thank you for contacting me about H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy & Security Act, commonly referred to as the "Cap and Trade" bill, which includes an attempt to address the issue of climate change by creating a market to control carbon emissions. I always appreciate the opportunity to hear from concerned Oklahomans, and welcome the opportunity to share with you my views on the issue.
H.R. 2454 is designed to limit greenhouse gases produced within the United States by capping the level of carbon and other gases emitted by companies, and by initially issuing and eventually selling pollution "allowances" for those levels that extend beyond the cap. Over a twenty year period, the cap would continually grow more and more restrictive, driving up the costs of using traditional carbon-emitting fuels and making green energy sources, whose cost have always been higher, more competitive in the marketplace.
While I strongly support initiatives to develop alternative energy and incorporate them into our national energy portfolio, I have consistently argued that we must also balance our economic and national security priorities with our environmental priorities. Over the past three decades, U.S. Energy demands have increased dramatically, making us increasingly dependent on foreign energy sources. The most relevant energy challenge facing our nation is escalating demand coupled with finite domestic sources. It is critical that a national energy policy reflect a balanced mix of domestic production of reliable energy resources, including natural gas, development of domestic renewable energy sources, improvements in our infrastructure and a commitment to conservation.
In contrast, the climate bill in question poses a grave threat to the US economy by driving American jobs into other countries. As caps on emissions grow more restrictive, so will the cost of domestic production. The legislation assumes companies will seek other forms of energy, but historically companies faced with driving costs imposed by the government naturally seek cheaper places to operate business, leading to the outsourcing of jobs and industry to countries with less exacting standards. Additionally, the bill would directly send billions of tax dollars overseas in the form of "international emission offsets," in order to subsidize similar environmental measures that foreign governments themselves refuse to shoulder.
On its most basic level a cap and trade system will increase the cost of doing business and increase the price of energy for Oklahomans. Businesses and local utilities will be forced to pass the burden of fees onto consumers in order to stay afloat, at a time when the average American is already under intense economic strain. The disproportionate cost burden created by the unfair distribution of emission allowances will be most severe for states like Oklahoma, where commissions and utilities have worked hard to keep electricity rates low. Oklahomans will likely see double-digit percentage increases on their utility bills, while states like California will receive windfall benefits.
These economically burdensome measures have no guarantee of any significant benefit to the global environment. Europe implemented a similar cap and trade program years ago, with questionable effects. In Belgium, for instance, environmental standards were raised too high for cement companies to remain financial viable. They relocated to Morocco, where they could operate with virtually no environmental regulations. Pollution did not lessen; it merely relocated to a new home, taking jobs along with it. Today the economies of China and India are expanding rapidly, and are not about to limit their commercial development by adopting punitive environmental measures.
Finally, even if HR 2454 goes according to plan, its impact on the global environment will be negligible at best. The United States accounts for 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The cap and trade bill aims to reduce our emissions by 15% over the next twenty years. Even if we accomplish this goal, it will result in a mere 4% reduction in global gas emissions.
I believe that there are more practical and cost effective ways to both protect the environment and to preserve American business interests. For this reason I have sponsored HR 1835, The New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act (NAT GAS Act). This bill offers tax incentives to encourage vehicles powered by natural gas, which run cleaner than gasoline and diesel powered engines and rely on a source of fuel abundantly found throughout the United States. Exchanging one traditionally fueled garbage truck with one fueled by natural gas is the environmental equivalent of taking 300 cars off the road.
America cannot mandate environmental reform to developing nations like China or India. If we are to make a real impact on global climate, it must be through innovation and not self-constraint. This can best be achieved by offering tax incentives to businesses, in order to develop green technology through the private sector rather than in spite of it.
The "Cap and Trade" bill is risky and ineffective, and I voted against it for those reasons. Please rest assured that I will continue working to provide viable alternatives to the economic and environmental challenges facing our country. I hope I can count on your support.
Respectfully Yours,
Dan Boren
Member of Congress
Posts
