Conservative Principles Now

Over 2,500 business leaders are flying in from around the world on carbon-spewing planes to the Swiss ski resort Davos for the World Economic Forum (WEF). If they were planning on taking a sports utility vehicle (SUV) or a limousine from the airport to the resort, they better think again:

Conference organisers have asked the business elite to leave their gas-guzzling limousines and SUVs, the traditional mode of transport for any self-respecting banker, at home. However, those who insist on turning up in their ostentatious cars will not be banned from entering the conference. Rather, cars that do not conform to the event’s vehicle specifications will not be eligible to receive a cherished “green sticker” that permits access to special security areas.”

Environmentalists have been quick to point out that this is nothing more than a gimmick. Greenpeace Switzerland’s Bruno Heinzer said, “From there you can see the intentions of the WEF, it’s really just to give itself a good image.” Rob Bailey, of Oxfam International (a non-governmental organization that fights poverty and injustice), asserted, “If you try to imagine the overall carbon footprint of the meeting, you will see that those restrictions on cars are probably going to be just a rounding value.” Interestingly, diesel cars will get the “green” light and avoid the conference’s ban.

The green initiative in Davos is a clear example of an underlying theme of the radical environmental movement: Controlling lives. It’s about forcefully changing peoples’ behavior and telling them what to do. The goal for environmental alarmists may be a cleaner planet but their “we-know-what’s-best-for-you” initiatives will drive people away faster than it will bring them in. If environmentalists are labeling the SUV ban in Davos as a gimmick, one can only imagine what sweeping regulations and initiatives they would have put in place if they did have their way.

Consumers have unique preferences when it comes to purchasing a vehicle. Whether it is safety features, reliability, fuel economy, style, comfort, price and/or handling, trade offs exist. Fuel economy versus size is among the biggest trade-offs, but perhaps people need an SUV because they have kids or they are safer when driving along snowy and icy roads at, say, a ski resort. If the radical environmental movement gets their way, we’ll have less trade offs because we’ll have less choices. And just like the Green Initiative in Davos, it won’t provide any tangible benefit to the environment.

“There’s a point at which you’ve got to ask yourself, what are we doing here? What’s the point?”

That’s Elaine Kamarck, a former Clinton administration official and advisor to then-Vice President Gore, and she’s talking about the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill. In order to garner enough votes to pass the House of Representatives, policymakers made promises that have groups like Greenpeace questioning the environmental effectiveness of the bill.

One of the most contentious provisions in the bill is the use of carbon offsets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Offsets allow carbon-emitting businesses to pay others to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Bob Barr, a columnist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, explains: “A manufacturing plant in, say, Gary, Ind., that is exceeding its ‘permitted’ expulsion of CO2, could continue to commit this sin against humanity by paying for a Brazilian farmer to plant some trees in the rain forest. A more patriotic company might achieve the same result by paying an Iowa farmer to implement more ‘Earth-friendly’ farming practices. Of course, to guard against some nefarious polluter trying to cheat Uncle Sam and the world by claiming bogus ‘offsets,’ here must be a monitoring mechanism. Enter the ‘Offsets Integrity Advisory Board’—yet another group of scientific ‘experts’ that would be tasked with compiling a list of qualifying offsets around the globe.”

Section 731a of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill creates this independent “Offsets Integrity Advisory Board” to help the administrator make decisions about the appropriate regulations. The board authorizes sector-specific allocations of international offset credits—which are highly vulnerable to politicization.

Proponents of cap and trade are trying to convince farmers that they will be the big beneficiaries of a carbon offset program because farmers can use cleaner technology, reduce nitrous oxide emissions, or simply not grow crops. But because so many sectors can take advantage of the carbon offset program, there will be little left for farmers. Page 60 of the Environmental Protection Agency’s analysis of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill is projecting that most of the domestic offsets will come from forestry and growing trees.

The reality is farmers use a lot of electricity, a lot of diesel fuel, and a lot of natural gas-derived chemicals and fertilizers to grow crops and maintain their farms. So it shouldn’t be surprising that a cap and trade program that artificially drives up the cost of energy will unfavorably affect farmers.

If it sounds silly and fraught with fraud, it is. Even with an “Offsets Integrity Advisory Board,” offsets are difficult to monitor and regulate. They are also very easy to manipulate. For example, a country could build a coal plant and say they’ve created offsets because they were going to build a dirtier one.

Bryan Leyland, chairman of the economic panel of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, said, “I first heard about carbon trading at a conference more than 10 years ago. I got up and said ‘If I was the financial adviser to the Mafia, I would advise them to get into carbon trading.’ Nothing that has happened since then changes my opinion - rather the reverse.”

In fact, the Italian mafia is getting involved in green energy.

And let’s not forget Enron’s Ken Lay was a strong supporter of carbon cap and trade. He believed a cap and trade program would “do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative.” These carbon allowances that will be bought and sold have a value estimated at $50 billion to $300 billion annually, and the trade in them would be a huge new business. Enron may be gone, but others ready to take advantage of cap and trade—at the public’s expense—are not.