Sarah Palin wrote an op-ed on Cap and Trade the other day. You know, just in case you hadn't heard. Aside from sending lefties into a tizzy about her actual "authority" to write an op-ed, it was good to see her actually put her energy knowledge to use.
She does a pretty solid job outlining why this is catastrophic legislation, summarizing it with this line:
The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.
Just a brief definition of supply-side economics for those who don't
know: in short, economic growth can be achieved by providing incentives
for people to supply goods and services... i.e., cut income tax and
capital gains tax. Allowing business to make their own decisions, and
not burdening them with unreasonable regulations benefits everyone:
consumers receive lower costs, and businesses can remain competitive.
In short, it's the reason capitalism works.
Cap and Trade is, first and foremost, economic suicide. Without
access to energy, our entire world comes to a standstill. The fact that
we have easy access to these resources now is at the root of our growth
as an industrialized nation. Our world is reliant on access to
affordable, accessible energy. Palin stresses the importance of
becoming energy independent:
There is no denying that as the world becomes more
industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less
dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn't lie in
making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the
issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges
without destroying America's economy.
Nail on the head. No one is going to argue that things need to be
better than they are right now. We are currently too dependent on
foreign energy sources. The effects of cap and trade force domestic
energy producers to cut back. The first thing to go? Jobs. Lots of
them. From Palin:
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.
So much for creating jobs.
Common sense application. More money spent to meet government
standards = less money they can spend on employing people. The mythical
jobs that will be created under this plan are certainly no substitute.
The even larger problem is that, even though job loss directly related
to energy could be economically crippling, it doesn't stop there. The
costs of Cap and Trade get passed on from energy providers to
consumers. Which, just to clarify, is you. When fuel costs more,
transportation costs more. This means everything costs more - from gas
and air fare down to your grocery bill.
(Side note: I'm amazed that the job loss from the auto sector was
viewed as economically devastating, to the point where we spend
billions of dollars bailing them out, and yet no one sees the job loss
in the energy sector as a problem...?)
One hang up I have: She
briefly mentions nuclear energy, but does not present it as a viable
alternative to fossil fuels. Which it is. The main complaint about
nuclear energy is the danger involved. They get all flustered and
indignant about Chernobyl. First of all, do you want to know how many
people have died of a nuclear meltdown in the United States? Zero.
Second, besides vodka, what has Russia ever done right in the history of the world?
We're going to use them as a reason to refuse to develop clean,
sustainable, abundant energy? Bad choice.
This has been the
failure of so many opponents of cap and trade - if we are to be
successful in defeating it, we need to have an alternate solution.
Nuclear energy is it. In the mean time, we have the resources right
here in our back yard to sustain us. Drill, baby, drill.