Electricity prices increase between 35% and 65%. 1.2 million to 2.3 million American jobs are lost. Household revenues decrease as much as $1,300. No, these are not the effects of an American recession—they are an act of Congress.
The Lieberman-Warner bill, also known as America’s Climate Security Act of 2007, proposes an aggressive cap-and-trade scheme for American businesses and will cost the federal government an additional $3.17 billion by 2015. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill will also impose an annual mandate of $90 billion on carbon-emitting private businesses.
Of the several bills which would institute climate change initiatives or produce impact studies, the Lieberman-Warner bill seems to have the most traction, with four related Senate Committee hearings and 11 cosponsors.
But these economically disastrous results may not be enough for some environmentalists.
“Avoiding the worst effects of global warming requires aggressive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for imminent changes in sea level, air temperature, and precipitation patterns,” argue the authors of Full Disclosure in a new report by the progressive Center of American Progress. Their solution to the legislative holdup: executive action. “It is not necessary, however, to wait for new legislation to take action,” write the authors, Christopher Pyke and Kit Batten. “The President has the authority to immediately require that all federal agencies assess and disclose the greenhouse gas emissions and global warming vulnerabilities associated with federal actions” and “should immediately issue an Executive order mandating such assessments,” they write (emphasis original).
The CAP authors believe that the Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) already provide the legislative justification for “aggressive” action on global warming. They deny that 1.) this is a new agenda, and 2.) that legislation is required to enact comprehensive emissions reporting requirements within federal agencies. “Using existing authority under NEPA is not ‘back door’ regulation of greenhouse gases. It is a necessary step to fulfill the statutory requirements of NEPA…,” they argue.
Batten and Pyke also argue that similar models are already in effect in California and Massachusetts and other states. Why not expand the policies of these “laboratories of democracy” to the federal level?
Citing research by Guelph University Economics Professor, Ross McKitrick, Fellow Ian Murray estimates that a 70% percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2060 will require a 50-75% reduction in American real per capita GDP. Both presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton propose curtailing emissions 80% by 2050. John McCain has expressed his support for cap and trade and cosponsored the 2007 Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act.
A Competitive Enterprise Institute Fellow, Murray condemns recent American and European biofuel mandates as “affront to humanitarian ideals” because last year’s 6.5 billion gallons of ethanol could have fed 216 million people for a year. This and ever-increasing ethanol mandates “in a world that is not fully fed right now,” he lamented.
Under the CAP proposal, federal actions would be subject to increased reporting requirements on their greenhouse gas emissions using “scientifically-defensible” Economic Impact Statements (EIS’s). Since many Americans are concerned about the rising cost of food, it’s important to note that the agency that files the highest percentage of EPI’s is the Department of Agriculture (29%). At a time when there is a global food shortage and increasing food costs, the CAP authors propose loading additional bureaucratic burdens onto agriculture.
Other major departments effected include (by percent of EPI’s filed) the Department of Interior (22%), the Department of Transportation (16%), the Department of Defense (14%), and the Department of Energy (8%).
CAP would also like to see fewer Americans drive cars and blame the poor state of public transportation on federal policies. “Federal policies subsidizing auto travel have historically distorted markets and artificially reduced the competitiveness of alternative modes of transportation,” they write. Perhaps they would like the federal government to discourage car use instead?
Should a sympathetic President be elected in 2008, the CAP’s suggested Executive Order could easily be implemented without Congressional action, much like the fairness doctrine.
To glimpse the radical agendas behind such initiatives, one need look no farther than reknowned populist Jim Hightower’s new book, Swim Against the Current.
“In 2000, the political wet dream of the greenhouse gas emitters came true when Bush and Cheney were slipped into the White House. Even as the impact of global warming worsened…and as the general public began to awaken, the Bushites kept…working furtively to monkey wrench the regulatory machine to allow more emissions,” writes Hightower and his co-author Susan DeMarco (emphasis original). Their book was promoted by CAP this April.
Bethany Stotts is a Staff Writer at Accuracy in Academia.
