Editorial: Cap-And-Trade Controversy Wages Strongly

The Obama administration is dead-set on passing an energy bill designed to cap carbon emissions, and legislators are tweaking proposals to make them acceptable enough so Congress will pass them. Industry is fighting this effort furiously, saying that it will cost lots of money and cause the United States to lose lots of jobs. Frankly, we cannot afford either, especially when the nation is unbelievably and deeply in debt.

Two issues are upon us and may be for some time. Firstly, there has been an ongoing impression, reflected by individual congressional pronouncements, that “cap-and-trade” legislation is dead in the water. Still, legislators are working feverishly to change minds.

Secondly, the Environmental Protection Agency, in an effort to sidestep “cap-and-trade,” proposed air regulations that would come down hard, critics say, on the same people “cap-and-trade” regulations would impact. It is called a “climate bill” and is said to be more ambitious than the “cap-and-trade” proposals.

The reality is that nothing is set in concrete where Congress is concerned. Bill proposals are amended by the minute, and no one will know exactly what will be in the final bills until they are put up for vote, and chances are strong that no one will read them except sponsors before the vote. Few congressmen may be given ample time to study the legislation before a one-sided party vote is taken. It is the same approach as the way the stimulus bill was presented.

In recent days, opponents of the climate bill proposal and “cap-and-trade” have been expressing their discontent with the potential of those proposals. Great Lakes ship operators are very upset with the proposed EPA air regulations and say they will cost jobs, and equipment-overhaul requirements will make the vessels uncompetitive. On October 23, Missouri Sen. Christopher “Kit” Bond came out full bore against “cap-and-trade” legislation. Distributed by Sen. Bond’s office, the news release says the climate bill, introduced by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) sets far stricter rules than the Waxman-Markey (energy) bill. It “removes provisions that require the (EPA) to be fair to ethanol producers and to protect energy-intensive manufacturing jobs in the United States that are exposed to unfair competition in China.” The Bond release cites experts who say, “the Waxman-Markey bill alone will eliminate 2.4 million net U.S. jobs.”

According to The Washington Post, “Great Lakes shipping officials say the cost of the new fuel and the engine overhauls needed to burn it would undermine their competitive edge and shift commodity transport to rail and truck.”

James H.I. Weakley, president of the Lake Carriers’ Association, told the Post, “the rule would cost U.S. and Canadian ships an extra $210 million a year for fuel. Out of a U.S. fleet of 65, he predicted 13 steamships with 429 mariners would be scrapped and that 13 ships with old diesel engines might face premature retirement.”

It is not a one-sided discussion by any means. The Post reported, “The emissions from these ships—the only mode of transportation not under new federal air pollution regulations—have been linked to increased levels of heart and lung disease…Large vessels rank second only to power plants in the health risk their air pollution poses.” Still, many lawmakers are striving, considering economic conditions, to soften the rule for Great Lakes shippers. The rules would also impact towing operations, but industry spokesmen say the towing industry has worked steadily for years to improve engine performance and emissions. We are not, however, just writing about ships and towboats.

Sen. Bond is well aware of the potential of these proposals and calls the Boxer-Kerry climate bill “a giant new energy tax on America’s families and workers.” While joining a press conference on the issue, Bond said, “My Missouri constituents are saying no to this job-killing and tax-raising bill and so will I.” A recent study by the National Association of Manufacturers found that the Waxman-Markey bill would eliminate up to 50,000 Missouri jobs by 2030 and cut the household income of Missouri families by $1,300 per year. This month Sen. Bond was presented with thousands of pieces of correspondence signed by Missouri constituents against cap-and-trade legislation. Members of the Missouri Electric Cooperatives presented him with more than 50,000 postcards signed by cooperative consumer-members, and the Missouri Farm Bureau brought with them more than 3,400 letters from Missouri farmers and ranchers, all of whom oppose cap-and-trade legislation.

Considering the size of the U.S. debt, the amount of money Congress has already spent, and the continuing negative predictions about job creation, among other things, it seems cap-and-trade legislation, including new climate control rules, should be postponed until the economy improves. It is not because opponents of these proposals are against clean air. But they surely are against regulations that they believe will deal a deathblow to their operations. That sentiment is pretty widespread. If postponed, the ultimate legislative battle would still be arduous, but it would not come at such a bad time.

The Waterways Journal encourages letters to the editor.
Have something on your mind?
Send letters to: jshoulberg@waterwaysjournal.net.
(Please indicate whether or not your letter is intended for publication.)