Confusion over what is and isn’t low carbon became apparent when activists hung this banner across a building in California, hoping to influence legislators.

The sweeping “cap and trade” legislation currently making its way through Congress is coming under fire from unlikely sources: the people who came up with the idea in the first place.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Thomas Crocker, the economist who originally outlined the scheme in the 1960s, sees at least two major problems with the plan.

First, he doubts it will work on the massive scale being proposed by the federal government, adding that cap and trade is better suited for issues like acid rain where damages are clear. "I'm skeptical that cap-and-trade is the most effective way to go about regulating carbon," he said, also noting that there are no global institutions that have the powers needed to implement it. "It is not clear to me how you would enforce a permit system internationally." And even if such a body with the necessary authority did exist, Crocker is not convinced that the limits would be enforced properly across the globe and the various industries.

The other problem is that economic damage resulting from “climate change” is virtually impossible to quantify. Current estimates are uncertain, so nobody really knows how strict the emissions cap should be, he said. Plus the system lacks flexibility. "Once a cap is in place, it is very difficult to adjust," Crocker notes. Instead, he proposes a simple tax on carbon.

A White House advisor called the argument about flexibility a “straw man,” insisting the “market-based cap” was indeed flexible. Apparently the design of the program calls for a price ceiling and a price floor, which somehow provides “built-in flexibility.”

The other man credited with devising the scheme, John Dales, died in 2007. But according to the Wall Street Journal article, titled ‘Cap-and-Trade’s Unlikely Critics: Its Creators,’ he was skeptical of using the system to curb “global warming” as well. "It isn't a cure-all for everything," he said in a 2001 interview. "There are lots of situations that don't apply." His plan was similar to Crocker’s except it was designed for farmers in Canada who were polluting the water. Crocker’s scheme was engineered to battle pollution from fertilizer plants in Florida 

Another recent critic of the cap-and-trade bill who has shocked observers and analysts is Timothy Wirth, a former democratic senator and climate change negotiator for Bill Clinton. According to a Bloomberg news article, he said the legislation has “gotten out of control” and should be scaled back by Congress. “The Republicans are right -- it’s a cap-and-tax bill,” he noted, adding that “it makes no sense” and it is “just too much.”     

So far, the House of Representatives has already passed its version of the bill with the support of big banks and the radical environmentalist fringe. The Senate is set to consider the legislation when it returns from its August recess. But let’s hope it never gets through. 

The fact that even the designers of the system and various insiders are criticizing this plan should be a wake up call to any Americans who may still support this monstrosity. Not only is “climate change” a manufactured problem — the Earth’s climate has always changed and will continue to do so — the “solutions” being offered could turn America into a third world economy — fast. This bill should be fiercely opposed, not only because it is blatantly unconstitutional, but because the consequences will be utterly devastating.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (2)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

danwhitehead1 said:

	Why do we never - - - - - - hear from any peer reviewed scientists about this thing?
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 20, 2009
Votes: +0

still free said:

	Rather Brave of Timothy Wirth No telling what kind of payback the Clintons, et al, will think up for Mr. Wirth. Thank you, Mr. Newman, for the reminder that this latest "rape" is not over and that we must really, really OPPOSE THIS BILL ... as if our life depends on it ... because it does.
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 20, 2009
Votes: +1