I’m not a big fan of the cap and trade approach to limiting climate change just passed by the House of Representatives. I much prefer the old tried and true cap and enforce approach, employed in every successful environmental effort since the 1960s.
While there’s disagreement today about whether cap and trade or cap and enforce is the best way to go when it comes to addressing man-made changes in the climate, however, there’s no disagreement when it comes to the primary criticism leveled at almost any legislation in this field— that it will cost too much and therefore damage the economy. You not only hear this fear expressed by Republicans, but by many Democrats as well.
Personally, I find this argument odd in a number of ways. First there’s the matter of “cost,” a term battered around as if it were synonymous with “destroy.” If a company has to spend a million dollars to accommodate a new climate change law, it doesn’t put that sum in a wheelbarrow, find an oven, and burn the greenbacks like kindling. The money gets funneled to some pollution control or alternative energy company. The polluter’s loss is their gain. It’s a zero sum game.
If meeting a new standard means changing things in-house without paying an outside party, that’s almost never a dead loss to the complying company. Invariably, it leads to in-house innovation and upgrading that not only betters the environment but ultimately improves bottom lines.
But, critics, argue, these costs, internal or external, ultimately get passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. To which I reply, well, yeah. Improving or safeguarding people’s lives costs money in almost every situation. A better car costs more than a clunker. A bigger police force makes the streets safer than a trimmed down force but is pricier. A cleaner, safer natural environment costs everyone something. Which seems appropriate given the stakes. You get what you pay for—or what you don’t pay for.
Which brings us to the actual size of the outlays needed to meet the new climate challenge. Depending on which think tank’s numbers you choose to believe, this will either be the equivalent of a pack of chewing gum daily for the average citizen, or to an astronomical amount sufficient to bankrupt the Republic. With respect to my own estimate, I simply fall back on long experience.
There’s a real Chicken Little feel to cries of unaffordability we’re hearing about for this new legislation. And if you think you’ve heard its like before, you have. Often. In many realms.
We can’t require seat belts in cars or raise the mileage standards because this will push up costs for car buyers to unsustainable levels. Remember those? How about: it will cost trillions to remove lead paint and asbestos from buildings just to make them livable. That one hasn’t exactly worked out as predicted. Make the air breathable, the water drinkable, nice objectives certainly and we have children, too, but its simply a cost we can’t bear if the economy is to survive. Another Chicken Little gem that seems not to have worked out as feared.
Shell out the needed money. Be out of pocket for what it costs while enjoying the new industries and job opportunities it creates. Pay what has to be paid. Then move on.