Congressman Lamar Smith on "cap-and-trade"

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Congressman Lamar Smith wrote:
> Smith said the Congressional Budget Office estimates a federal cap-and-trade
> program would cost U.S. families an average of $1,600 in higher energy costs
> each year. The 22-year veteran congressman said that is the lowest estimate
> he has seen so far.
>
> A cap-and-trade program would set limits for carbon emissions from
> industrial and commercial sources. Permits for increased usage must be
> purchased or traded from companies that are reducing emissions.
>
> "No matter what, it will be expensive," Smith said. "It won't reduce
> emissions," he added, citing limited success in Europe and the lack of
> similar programs elsewhere in the world.
>
> Smith said he supports growth in solar and wind power, especially as ways
> are developed to store and to transmit alternative electrical generation.
> "But the hard reality is that only 2 percent of power comes from wind and
> solar," Smith told more than 150 people attending the chamber luncheon.
>
> Seventy percent of power still comes from carbon-emitting fossil fuels,
> Smith said, and 20 percent comes from nuclear power. "I think nuclear needs
> to be part of the mix as we try to reduce our reliance on foreign energy,"
> Smith said.

Congressman Smith,

Do you agree that we are in the midst of an environment crisis?
Do you believe that pollution is contributing to problems in our environment?
Do you believe that so-called greenhouse gases are pollution?
Do you believe that building new nuclear power plants can effectively reduce pollution? By how much? How much will building these new plants be? How much to maintain them? How much in depreciation? How much will it cost to handle nuclear waste disposal? Where will it go? How will it get there? How will the plants and the waste be protected? How much will all of that cost? How does that compare with a cap-and-trade system, which requires no new infrastructure, maintenance or depreciation, and indeed might make better use of the infrastructure we already have?

Which of the above solutions is sustainable? (Hint: it's not cap-and-trade, nor nuclear.)

And why do you say "It won't reduce emissions" ? Is that simply because the cap is set at current levels? Certainly, that indeed will reduce emissions in the future, wouldn't you agree? Also, is the cap not adjustable?

Lastly on this issue, isn't it quite possible that the cap-and-trade system could also generate wealth, just as the securities markets (sometimes) do today? Might such a system, then, actually have the potential to help the economy and those families you mentioned?

I think we agree that something must be done, and in relatively short order. Indeed, I think that something should be a lot of somethings, and we need to think across the board. Just saying "no" to a viable option is not an option. I think you should instead say "how can we make this work?"