Reprinted from Congressman Ralph Hall's Monthly Update e-mail.

Cap and Trade Energy Bill Costs Too Much, Accomplishes Too Little

Dear Fellow Texan,

The House has seen much activity this summer in regards to energy. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman and co-author Edward Markey pushed their "cap and trade" bill, H.R. 2454, through the Energy and Commerce Committee and on to the House Floor where it passed by a narrow vote of 219-212.  I voted against this bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee, and against it on the Floor, because I think it will cost too much and accomplish too little.

What is "Cap and Trade"?
"Cap and trade" essentially means that the government, in an effort to reduce global warming, would set a cap on the total amount of carbon that could be emitted nationally. Companies would then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. Over time, the cap would be lowered to reduce carbon emissions.

Would "Cap and Trade" work?
Though "cap and trade" has noble intentions, the actual effect this cap would have on the environment is miniscule. In reality, "cap and trade" would be a massive overhaul tax on energy without producing the end results it claims - a cleaner environment and more job opportunities. The Waxman-Markey bill mandates that by 2050 CO2 levels in the U.S. be reduced by 83 percent below 2005 levels. These emission levels are comparable to those of 1907, when the primary mode of transportation was horseback. According to Chip Knappenberger of the World Climate Report, this cap on carbon emissions would do little for the environment. Knappenberger reported that temperature increases would be lowered merely hundredths of a single degree Fahrenheit by 2050.

How would "Cap and Trade" affect taxpayers?
The negative ramifications on American citizens are too costly.

• Higher Energy Costs. The corporate costs of buying expensive permits will be passed along to consumers. The Heritage Foundation reported that the Waxman-Markey bill would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020. For a family of four, that would mean higher energy costs of $1,870. By 2035, after restrictions from "cap and trade" have had more time to ripple down, that same family of four would pay $6,800 more in energy costs. 
  
  
• Job losses and shifts.
  • Small businesses will be subjected to higher energy costs, making it more difficult to maintain business, much less create new jobs.
  • Many U.S. Industries will be unable to absorb higher costs, resulting in an estimated 2.3 to 2.7 million jobs lost each year over the next twenty years.  Manufacturing jobs will shift to countries like China and India, making the American market less competitive internationally.

What's the Alternative?
We need to find ways to provide America with clean and renewable energy, and there is a more fiscally responsible way than the "cap and trade" bill.
 
I support the American Energy Act, an "all of the above" plan that will provide energy independence, create more jobs and promote a cleaner environment, without imposing a national energy tax.  This plan calls for more domestic exploration for oil, oil shale and natural gas, and revenue generated through the sale of domestic leases will be invested in renewable and alternative energy sources.  The plan renews our commitment to clean and emissions free nuclear energy, establishing the goal of 100 new nuclear reactors over the next 20 years.  Finally, the plan encourages conservation by expanding tax incentives that already promote greater efficiency.

The American people don't want - and don't deserve - a national energy tax.  They want affordable and reliable energy; they want alternative energy sources; and they want energy independence.  The American Energy Act will help achieve these goals.

Sincerely, 
Ralph M. Hall
Member of Congress