The nation can’t seem to get enough of Sarah Palin.  Many social conservatives adore her just as many liberals seem to be giddy over her repeated missteps.  Whether one loves her or hates her, there’s no question that she draws much attention whenever she speaks.  So, like many others, I was quite interested to read her recent op-ed in the Washington Post criticizing the proposed cap and trade plan to deal with energy and global warming.

Perhaps as one of the defacto figureheads of the Republican party, this would provide an opportunity for her to present some new ideas on these vexing problems.  The reality is that there’s no free lunch when it comes to energy and the environment.  All solutions have costs and will involve some pain.  Unfortunately, rather than addressing these tradeoffs constructively, Palin chose instead to just ignore the problem.  This is not to say that she was all wrong.  She raised some important points.  It’s just that her proposed solutions are the exact opposite of what needs to be done.

Probably the most concerning aspect of Palin’s piece is its glaring omission of any serious thinking about how to deal with the environmental impact of our energy usage.  The cap and trade program addresses two interrelated issues:  energy and environment.  While Palin seems eager to speak about utilizing domestic sources of energy, she says virtually nothing about how to deal with emissions.  I was struck by Palin’s dismissal of the cap and trade program.  She wrote, “It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.”

Yes, there will likely be some short term financial costs to this effort.  However, I’m not sure how ignoring global warming can be considered good long term planning.  It seems to me that dramatically altering our environment such that coastal regions are flooded and the nation’s agricultural output is significantly altered could be considered “permanent damage.”

Palin is correct that there are going to be job losses and that energy will likely be more expensive.  She writes, “Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years.”

We must ensure that unemployed workers are retrained and put back to work.  It will take time and it will cost money just as  free trade has required that we restructure our workforce.  Many would argue that the benefits from free trade are worth the costs of retraining.  I would say the same for the benefits from a livable environment.

Palin writes, “The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will “necessarily skyrocket.” So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.” Yes, she’s correct that some consumer prices will rise as companies adjust to the cap and trade program. However, some detractors have been arguing that consumers would need to pay thousands of dollars extra every year because of this program.  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently released its estimates which found that by 2020 the average American household would pay an extra $165 per year and that those in the lower income brackets would actually get $40 back.  In ensuing years, costs to consumers would actually go down as permits are sold and proceeds rebated back to consumers.

The criticism that Palin raises regarding other countries such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China is certainly a valid one.  We should be concerned that a cap and trade program in the US could make energy and industrial production in other countries cheaper.  This could result in capital flight from the US to less restrictive countries.  The solution, however, is not to scrap the cap and trade system.  Rather, maximum effort should be made in the upcoming post-Kyoto climate negotiations taking place in Copenhagen in December to make sure that countries such as China buy into the process.

Many developing countries argue that they too should have the same right to exploit their resources just as the wealthy countries have already done.  This can not be a justification for their inaction because they, like the wealthy countries, have a stake in a livable climate.  The world cannot afford for them to make the same mistakes that we did.  However, we must lead by example and the proposed cap and trade program allows us to do that.

This need not be a partisan issue.  Those that agree that there is a serious problem to be addressed generally have recognized the need to work together on a bipartisan basis.  In fact, the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy that spent years trying to identify solutions that could be supported on a bipartisan basis, includes a cap and trade component in their recommendations for policy changes.  Where there can be little compromise is with those who simply deny that there is actually a critical problem to be solved.  Sarah Palin’s op-ed makes me wonder if she is in that crowd.

No related posts.