Last June (2008), Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) put before the House for approval a piece of legislation that basically calls for a 3 percent reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2012, 17 percent by 2020, 42 percent by 2030, and 83 percent by 2050 from 2005 levels. In essence, the government would set a cap on the amount of carbon dioxide that could be emitted and would issue allowances to polluting sectors that could buy and sell those rights — a cap and trade scheme.

The House approved the legislation by a narrow margin, 219-212.

On the heels of Waxman-Markey, Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) last October introduced in the Senate another piece of legislation to ride on the back of Waxman-Markey called The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, which the Senators said would cut carbon pollution and stimulate the economy by creating millions of jobs in the clean energy sector.

Kerry-Boxer was similar to Waxman-Markey, but upped the near-term reduction of GHG gas emission to 20 percent by 2020 and substantially expanded provisions for nuclear energy. The bill lost support in November, so Kerry went back to the drawing board. He dumped Boxer and enlisted Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and a now reluctant Lindsey Graham (R-SC), in what was an effort to “broaden” the appeal of the bill. He also renamed it the American Power Act (APA).

Kerry says that APA is not a “cap and trade” proposal but a “pollution reduction” bill. “I don’t know what ‘cap and trade’ means. I don’t think the average American does,” Kerry said. “This is not a cap-and-trade bill, it’s a pollution reduction bill.” Regardless of what Mr. Kerry calls the bill, its impact will not be on the climate.

Climatologist Chip Knappenberger, administrator of the blog World Climate Report modeled the environmental benefits and found, “The global temperature savings of the Kerry-Lieberman bill is astoundingly small — 0.043°C (0.077°F) by 2050 and 0.111°C (0.200°F) by 2100. In other words, by century’s end, reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 83% will only result in global temperatures being one-fifth of one degree Fahrenheit less than they would otherwise be.

“That is a scientifically meaningless reduction,” he said.

That leaves us with a side-effect of APA that’s hard to fathom — a further crippling of the economy. The Washington, DC-based think tank, The Heritage Foundation, forecast the extraordinary costs that will fall on businesses and families across the country should this legislation become law.

“Americans can expect the following to occur between enactment and the year 2035 (all figures are adjusted for inflation):

• Inflation-adjusted losses to gross domestic product (GDP) of $9.9 trillion;
• more than $4.6 trillion in higher energy taxes;
• job losses exceeding 2.5 million for some years;
• annual family-of-four energy costs rising by $1,000, including a gasoline price increase of more than $1.20 per gallon;
• annual family of-four energy costs plus increased cost of goods and services totaling more than $3,000;
• average GDP loss per family of four above $4,500 per year;
• family-of-four net worth dropping by more than $40,000; and,
• the family of four’s share of the national debt rising by an additional $27,000.

If Kerry, Lieberman and Boxer really want to enact measures that make sense and possibly make a difference when it comes to climate change, they need to start with developing countries such as China and India, who have flat out refused to participate in any program that would force them to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions, instead of placing the financial burden on U.S manufacturing.

Fortunately, President Obama appears to be distancing himself from the current climate change legislation. For the manufacturers in this country, and everyone else’s sake, let’s hope so.

John O'Brien can be reached at: jobrien@paperage.com

PaperAge. Copyright © O'Brien Publications, Inc. All rights reserved.