Pro

Con

Puts a “Cap” on carbon dioxide emissions, in order to  reduce global warming

Most scientists dispute “Global Warming” as being man-made, citing the impact of sun activity on weather patterns; recent data indicates a cooling trend.  Much of the “evidence” of global warming has been exposed as hoaxes perpetrated in order to promote a political agenda.

Estimated cost of Cap and Trade is between $646 billion and $2 trillion according to the Washington Times. 

Intentionally punishes specific industries that provide or consume carbon based energy such as Ohio’s coal industry and manufacturing industries.

Makes a market in carbon dioxide emissions, promoting “green energy” by allowing “green” businesses “sell” or trade carbon emission “savings” to companies that produce more than their share of carbon emissions and are willing to pay for carbon “credits” to avoid fines & taxes

Would require the creation and operation of a government agency similar in size and power to the Internal Revenue Service to administer the trading of energy credits; jobs would grow for “carbon credit accountants” and lawyers.  Business would be forced to pass the additional costs on to consumer, close their business or move jobs out of the country..

The “Cap” would be increasingly tightened to depress carbon production and usage; necessarily also depressing energy producing and consuming industries..

The bill includes extraordinary interferences in personal choices; e.g., restricting choices in household lighting.

Promotes “energy independence” from foreign oil and other sources

Does nothing to repeal government restrictions on the use of known domestic sources of oil, gas or coal.

Does nothing to repeal government impediments to nuclear energy production; an American invention, but no new plants have been permitted in decades.

Promotes the development of “green” energy jobs

Analysis consistently indicates that more jobs in America are eliminated than created by Cap and Trade

Promotes the development of advanced energy technology

Correct.  It is the energy equivalent of the goal of putting a man on the moon in the 1960’s.  It should be presented in that way to America, rather than to present it as a realistic solution in the near term.  The technology does not currently exist for cost effective and reliable energy production from wind or solar farms.  Intermittent energy cannot be stored.

Power grids must be built to the remote wind & solar farms.

There is no assurance that “clean” energy solutions will be available in the near future; 1 year is required to “study” wind or solar power followed by 3+ years to obtain environmental permits (assuming no “green lobby” opposition), before construction can even begin.

Heritage Foundation

Americans for Prosperity

Heartland Foundation

www.heritage.org

www.americansforprosperity.org

www.heartland.org