Today we conclude our five-part series on cap-and-trade. And we do so by looking at the political gamesmanship that went into writing this bill.
Want to know how insincere the authors of this bill were? Insincere enough that they wrote in key exceptions, usually timed to coince with elections:
“Consider also that electoral politics are practically written into the bill. The first year of cap and trade would be the presidential election year of 2012, when emissions would be limited to 97 percent of 2005 levels. So, not overly draconian while Barack Obama faces re-election.
“Democrats have also actually scheduled emissions increases in 2014, just in time for mid-term elections, and in 2016. Clearly, they are trying to limit cap and trade’s effect on the next few elections.”
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2009/07/02/wingfielded0702.html
My question is: if cap-and-trade is such a great answer to global warming, then why don’t these Washington lawmakers have the courage of their convictions and implement these regulations even during election cycles?
Of course, that question answers itself.
The sooner we get past cap-and-trade and get onto alternative energy like biomass, solar and wind, the better off we will all be.






