Cap-and-trade energy bill faces critics on both sides

Two general arguments are taking place over climate change.

One is about whether it’s happening and whether human activity is a significant contributor. Hard-core doubters refuse to accept compelling evidence that has produced credible scientific acceptance that the problem is real. Debating them is a futile exercise that distracts attention and energy from the second, and far more urgent, debate: What are we going to do about it?

The major legislation to emerge thus far, the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, represents anything but a model of consensus. The so-called American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 squeezed through the House, 219-212. It has drawn attacks from business for being both environmentally ineffective and economically harmful and from some environmental groups (Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, International Rivers) for being too weak.

That’s not a promising beginning.

Congress and the White House could improve the chances of meaningful legislation by listening to the critics. Not the critics who are in denial about the climate change, but the ones who recognize the problem and want a solution that will achieve reasonable goals without destroying the nation’s competitiveness.

In a recent position paper, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce pledged its commitment to working with Congress “to achieve meaningful climate change legislation that provides a stable and growing economy, and promotes the development of needed new sources of energy and technologies across a range of industries.”

If Congress is interested, as it should be, an encouraging first step would be to dispense with the flawed cap-and-trade strategy that is at the heart of Waxman-Markey. Even environmentally friendly International Rivers has pointed out that the measure’s predicted achievements would exist only “on paper.”

The bill presumably would require 2005 levels of greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced 20 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. But International Rivers says offsets built into the measure would allow emissions to increase until 2025.

Meanwhile, as China’s and numerous Third World countries’ economies continue to emerge unfettered by such concerns, the global problem would worsen and America’s economy would suffer staggering energy costs.

Congress needs to replace the cap-and-trade approach with a system – probably including a carbon tax – that encourages the development of clean energy sources, including nuclear power, and gives industries an incentive to apply their savvy to effective solutions.

Responsible stakeholders understand that the country – the world, in fact – is facing a serious challenge. Congress should embrace their eagerness to work out effective strategies.