Thomas Friedman has a unique look on the cap-and-tax (climate change) bill that recently passed the House and is on its way to the Senate for debate.
Friedman argues that for fiscal conservatives, this bill is actually a good thing.
“We need Republicans who believe in fiscal conservatism and conservation joining this legislation in the Senate. We want a bill that transforms the whole country not one that just threads a political needle. I hope they start listening to green Republicans like Dick Lugar, George Shultz and Arnold Schwarzenegger.”
How does rewarding those who pollute the most, punish those developing and implementing new fossil fuel technologies, and saddling the American public with thousands of extra dollars in costs exactly fiscally conservative?
Friedman thinks that by taxing carbon emissions, it will lead to increased innovation and development in other non-traditional energy sectors…which may create jobs and new technology.
It sounds good in theory, but when those renewable energies only account for 4% of U.S. now and grow by optimistic projections to 11% in 2030, energy consumption rises by 9% by 2030, and use of oil, coal, and natural gas even with an explosion in renewables STILL makes up over 75% of where our energy comes from in 2030 (according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration), all this legislation does is punish the public with higher taxes, job losses, and more costs.
How exactly is that fiscally conservative again?
Of note, Harris Interactive recently conducted a poll to gauge the knowledge of the average American on energy issues…as can be imagined, much of what is driving this debate to the left is a lack of information.
Also blogging: Crystal Clear Conservative
