Cap and Trade is an Energy Tax

Statement

Those who are struggling to make ends meet during these tough economic times remember all too well the strain put on family budgets last summer when gas prices hit more than $4.00 per gallon. The American people demanded real answers from Washington then and they deserve real answers now.

A major component of the climate change proposal before Congress right now is referred to as "cap and trade."

Cap and trade would impose a limit on carbon dioxide emissions in the United States and require businesses to purchase "allowances" for their emissions. One proposal would require an 83 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Domestically, we haven't had such a low "footprint" since the late 19th century.

The increased cost of compliance would then be passed onto energy consumers in the form of higher energy costs. Those hit hardest by this massive tax increase will be the poor - who experts agree spend a greater proportion of their income on energy consumption.

To make matters worse, various studies suggest anywhere from 1.8 to 7 million jobs could be lost at a time when our nation's economy is suffering.

The cap and trade policy is, as referred to by Congressman John Dingell (D-MI), a national energy tax. It would be one of the government's largest revenue sources within the next decade and hit the average family of four for as much as $3,000 each year.

Cap and trade will cost families, manufacturers, and agriculture producers a tremendous amount of money on their bottom lines. The possibility also exists that cap and trade would send energy production jobs overseas.

This legislation also hits certain states harder than others. The Renewable Electricity Standard provision of the bill requires utilities to derive 25 percent of their output from renewable energy sources by 2025, but resources from nuclear, clean coal technology and hydropower wouldn't qualify.

This means the economies in Midwest and Southeast states (with high manufacturing employment and electricity usage derived from coal power) like Nebraska, Iowa, and Indiana will see the most impact.

Instead of forcing all Americans to shoulder a national energy tax, we should instead be focusing on an "all of the above" energy strategy which incorporates all forms of energy, like wind, solar, hydropower, clean coal technology, biomass, and oil and gas available by exploring here in America.

We also should be taking steps to promote expanded economic growth and net job creation for Americans through energy research and innovation. We also must ensure our energy delivery systems and electricity grid provide the high reliability American consumers and our economy demand.

A common sense energy plan in which every source is on the table can lead to a cleaner environment, cleaner energy, and lower prices for families and small businesses.

This approach will not only preserve jobs and avoid costly tax increases, but also allow for us to use new technology to transition to a cleaner, more efficient energy economy in the future.

Both Democrats and Republicans want to protect our environment while allowing our economy to grow and create jobs. Our nation's economic well-being is tied to the strength and stability of our energy portfolio - not to political beliefs or stances. Misguided policies which stymie our economy during a perilous time period are not the way to go.

Source