Keeping Score on Climate Change Proposals

Only a real policy wonk could hope to sort out the dizzying array of complex proposals to address global climate change--cap-and-trade, emission credits, carbon sequestration, etc. But regardless of how complicated the problem is, decisions on how to deal with it cannot be left to Beltway bureaucrats and bean counters alone. The American people must educate themselves and weigh in on the debate.

 

As you read and hear about the literally dozens of different proposals to combat climate change, you might consider evaluating those plans by asking yourself a few simple questions:

 

First, does the solution require all nations to do their fair share? If not, then the solution won't work and won't be fair. The economic sacrifice required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should not fall on a single nation or group of nations. All the world's largest producers of greenhouse gases must be a part of any agreement as must all of the users of energy sources that emit greenhouse gases.

 

Second, does the solution seem realistic and achievable? Many Americans would like to believe we can simply snap our fingers and invent the technology to solve this problem overnight. Technology must play a major role--especially in making current energy sources burn more cleanly, in improving efficiency, and in creating alternatives--but it can't do everything, and it can't do it right away. Anyone who tells you it can isn't telling you the truth. The government shouldn't mandate technologies that don't exist and they shouldn't mandate emission reductions that can't reasonably be achieved in a given period of time. Instead, it should work with the private sector to create these technologies to use at home and sell all over the world. As with everything in life, if it sounds too good to be true, it is!

 

Third, does the solution allow the economies of all nations to grow? If an advocate isn't discussing the costs and sacrifices of his or her proposal, beware! Addressing climate change is going to be very expensive no matter how it is approached. The key is to manage those costs so they don't destroy entire economies, cost jobs, or lower the standard of living. The risk is that a plan will so drastically reduce the supply of energy--or its use--that it will undermine economic growth.

 

The Chamber will continue to scrutinize each climate change proposal to determine whether it is global in scope ... if it would truly help the environment ... whether it properly emphasizes efficiency and technology ... and whether it would help or hurt our economy. Our support or opposition to these proposals will be based on those principles.