From The New York Times:
Energy, Climate Change — but No Cap and Trade
By JOHN M. BRODER
The latest proposal to deal with energy and global warming came Wednesday from Senator Richard Lugar, a moderate Republican from Indiana, whose plan seeks to cut energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions without creating a new market in carbon credits or taking a big bite out of the economy.
The proposal – dubbed the Lugar Practical Energy and Climate Plan – has little chance of passage in the Democratic-dominated Senate. But Mr. Lugar’s more incremental approach is designed to appeal to moderate Republicans and a group of Midwestern Democrats who are nervous about the impact of broad climate change legislation on jobs in states that are heavily dependent on coal and manufacturing.There are a very large number of people who would be satisfied with an approach to energy that rewards efficiency and conservation... but does not penalize everyone in the process. Mr. Lugar's bill tends toward that approach, but still relies on the stick more than the carrot.
Instead of subsidizing inefficient alternatives to the energy needs of the U.S., let the marketplace reward efficiency. How? By the lower operating costs for the products.
But that doesn't fix anything! It fixes all of the taxpayer paid subsidizing of overly-expensive, politically-correct solutions that don't solve anything.
But what about energy independence? Perhaps the government should pass legislation that says the government should stay out of the energy business business. Rather than hamstringing the energy producers, let them produce.
But what about pollution? Pollution can still be regulated and penalized.
But what about CO2? That becomes a pollutant as soon as plants can live without it. Why not ask, "What about food?"
On a personal note, we are building our retirement home. It will have:
- R49 roof insulation; R19 wall insulation
- low e-glass
- fiberglass doors with insulation
- wrapped exterior walls
- Energy Star appliances
- 96% + efficiency heating and cooling
We believe in conservation through efficiency as long as it makes economic and health/safety sense. We won't buy a motorcycle-sized car to save a few gallons of gas each month while endangering our safety in traffic. The government feels it knows what is best. Yet, the government would make choices for us that are precisely the opposite of those we are making. What we consider mandatory [good economic decisions based on conservation] and poor economic decisions [foregoing safety for the very high mileage of a small car], the government would reverse. So, we opt for no energy legislation and no energy subsidies.
Let the marketplace offer. Let consumers decide. Let technology provide. But when the Democratic Party commits suicide by passing Cap and Trade or whatever they want to call the Cost Americans An Arm And A Leg Act, we'll just watch them get voted out of office by Americans who have poorly insulated homes with older appliances and utility bills they can't pay.