Cap and Trade

I'm not unhappy that the House passed the climate change bill. Notice that I said, "not unhappy." I used a double negative there as way to say I'm happy, but in a reserved way.

Here's what I like about the bill.

1) "Cap and Trade," in theory, makes people accountable for their actions. Greenhouse gas emissions are what we economic educators call a "negative externality." Cap and Trade imposes costs on those who create the negative externality. It uses the best economic thinking to recognize that there is a socially optimum amount of pollution that we all put into the air. Yes, hippies, there is a socially optimum amount of pollution. A pollution free world would mean no mangoes, no organic food, no ability to travel or provide aid to the developing world. There are lots of good things that come as a side effect of pollution. So, what cap and trade does is sets a limit at the socially optimum amount of pollution and forces polluters (all of us) to pay for the pollution we create beyond our socially optimum amount.

2) The cost of the bill is modest. "Democrats pointed to two reports — one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency — that suggested average increases would be limited after tax credits and rebates were taken into account. The CBO estimated the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, the EPA $80 to $110 a year. But Republicans and industry groups say the real figure would be much higher." Let's assume the CBO estimate is accurate. $175 a year is LESS THAN FIFTY CENTS A DAY. Let's assume an even worse case scenario than that, which is that the CBO is wrong (as they frequently are). Let's assume that the cost is twice as much. That's $350 a year. Um, hello, that still LESS THAN A DOLLAR A DAY.. In either scenario, the marginal cost is nominal to the average energy consumer and producer.

The hullabaloo about the bill's cost is nonsense and reflective of people's mathematical illiteracy, which is an educational failure -- not a legislative one.

Here's what I don't like about this piece of legislation:

1) It's a 1200 page monstrosity. Now, I confess, I can't make it through a 1200 page monstrosity of a bill, laden with legislative language that makes it darned near impossible for the "average American" who will be paying the dollar a day more to understand. I found the 1092 page version that was reported to the House, but not the full version. Now, reading this is NOT our responsibility as citizens. The Founders created a Democratic Republic, not a direct democracy, for a reason. The length troubles me because it creates exceptions and enforcement provisions that limit the effectiveness of the legislation and will likely keep enforcement and execution limited.

2) The process. I dislike the news media's blind idol worship of President Obama. I generally applaud the President for treating the American people like adults and not fearing complexity in addressing difficult issues. However, I'm concerned about his repeated attempts to turn issues into immediate crises that demand attention and action yesterday. To his (or his advisors') discredit, too frequently, deliberative debate and discussion about issues gets dismissed. I don't know if that's on the media, our legislative leaders, on us, or all of the above. However, the lack of informed, serious, deliberation that requires people to use their heads, their hearts, and all of the other faculties that would give us effective government that reflects the judgment of an informed citizenry.

In general, I'm hopeful that the Senate will keep the lobbyists at bay on this issue and pass the legislation. I'm just nervous that the pigs will not be able to stay away from the trough as the Senate deliberates...