Cap and Tax

Yesterday (8-31-09) there was an editorial in the ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE titled "Cap and Trade". Well, I had some thoughts.....

There is a man, Claiborne Deming, who is chairman of Murphy Oil's executive committee, was speaking at the Clinton Library in Little Rock very recently and the writer of the editorial went to hear what he had to say. I didn't, but did hear him on a couple of local NPR radio shows. Since he said the same thing of both of those, I think he probably said about the same thing at the Clinton Library. Things mentioned in the editorial indicate that. Mr. Deming does not like "cap and trade" and the energy bill currently making its way through the congress. Now when you see 'chairman of the executive committee' of Murphy Oil, Arkansas' biggest entry into the oil brotherhood, you just know he's not going to be in favor of any bill that will change the picture on energy. It could cost his company. And him. But I have to give the man credit, what I heard on the radio did make some sense.

One thing Mr. Deming said was that, suppose the country did get very serious about about cutting back on carbon emissions? Then the editorial writer babbles about going back to covered wagons, no electricity. Were those his words or Mr. Deming's? Mr. Deming, on the radio, did not impress me as a man who would say something so silly. Anyway, the point was that just because we did it did not mean the whole world would, especially the developing countries like China and India. Mr. Deming seems to believe that any move to limit carbon emissions would mean a significant loss of economic resources and power for us. He points out the the U. S. is pretty much post-industrial and that our carbon footprint is fairly flat-lined, and wonders what good it would do world air quality for us to start limiting carbon emissions when the rest of the world does not? That's a fair question, I think, with a fairly obvious answer. But, I thought that we, as a country, prided ourselves on being that 'shining city on the hill', and example -- a good example. We certainly have not standing to ask -- or demand -- such limits from other countries if we're not willing to limit ourselves.

Mr. Deming would prefer that instead of calling it cap and trade we all refer to it as 'cap and tax' and I hear this a lot from those opposed to the whole idea. "Cap and trade" has a reasonable sound to it, would appear to be fair, easy, something workable without much, if any, additional cost. However, "Cap and tax" is an alarm bell. Now, truth to tell, I don't understand the whole thing enough to say which is the more accurate. But I am cautious when people start using phrases designed to create fear and loathing. Then, he went on to say that if we're to cut fuel emissions by 83 percent over the next 40 years, people in Arkansas would have to cut the miles driven yearly from 12,500 to 6,700 or about 50 percent. Of course what he did not say -- nor did the editorial writer -- is that that is true only if we make no progress over the next 40 years in fuel economy or even -- heaven forbid -- quit using oil/gasoline/diesel as our primary transportation fuel. You know, there's a lot of R&D going on aimed at just that goal. And much of it appears promising. At any rate, the cost of gasoline over the next 40 years is going to go up, probably very significantly. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. If we continue to depend on gasoline and diesel to power our cars and trucks, most of us will have to cut back on miles driven anyway. We won't be able to afford the gasoline any more. (Remember last year? $4.00+ per gallon. You think those days are not coming back?)

Mr. Deming says that this cap and trade bill -- HR 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act 2009 -- is going to change our lifestyles significantly over the next 50 years, in ways we won't like, but that it does not tell the American people about those changes. In fact, he suggest, and the editorial writer just fans the fire here, "They" are hiding it all from the people because "they" know the people would not stand for those changes. Come on, our lifestyles are going to change over the next 50 years no matter what we do or do not do. The question is do we want changes brought about by radical attempts to maintain the status quo, or by research and development, by PROGRESS. He makes a plea for tax incentives for companies to purchase new diesel engines for their cars and trucks because the technology has improved so much since the last fleet re-do. What about tax incentives for individuals who add solar or wind power technology to power their homes. That technology has improved a lot over the last several years too. Investing in that will lead to even more improvement in the future, open up all kinds of new jobs and careers.

Then, we trot out nuclear energy. Folks, I'm of mixed feelings about nuclear energy. Sure, other countries have invested in a big way and now get significant amounts of their energy from nuclear power. And yes, there have been only two significant "accidents" that we know of, and only one of those was really serious. Do you want to be living next door to the next really serious one? What to do with all that spent fuel laying around. It's extremely hazardous -- and a potential target of terrorists. No one wants this stuff stored in their back yard! And the promise of cheap energy from nuclear power has never materialized, has it? Did your electrical cost go down when Arkansas 1 and 2 came on line? I didn't notice it if it did. I can't find any real figures from the US or other places to back up the claim to cheap nuclear energy.

I think Mr. Deming's take on this issue is heavily influenced by both his current and former positions in the oil industry and the determination of that industry to make sure it stays on top, that nothing else comes along that is better, cheaper, cleaner, more desirable. And I think the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette is afraid of progress, determined to prevent anything good from coming out of the current administration.

I'm going to read up some more about HR2454. I would suggest that we all do so. You can't have a viable democracy without an informed public and a lot of the people that are trying to inform you have private agendas. Be careful.

Just my thoughts...........