CHRIS ROTHFUSS
Perspective
Sens. Mike Enzi and John Barrasso voted last week against the bipartisan Lieberman-Warner bill targeted at addressing climate change through a "cap and trade" emissions strategy. Sen. Enzi voted against the bill because he felt that an emissions trading scheme would negatively impact gasoline prices and Wyoming’s coal industry. He couldn’t be more wrong.
We need legislation that reduces greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and ends our dependence on foreign oil. We cannot hide behind the fear of change while waiting for some "silver bullet" technology to solve our energy problems. The market will never promote appropriate technologies while there is no cost associated with CO2 emission.
At the same time, traditional regulation can be too onerous for businesses and has a tendency to arbitrarily pick winners (corn ethanol) and losers (clean coal). A "cap and trade" system is the best of all worlds because it provides a ceiling for emissions while allowing market forces to identify cheap, low-emission technologies.
It is a myth that business is against a "cap and trade" system. Industry leaders know that such a strategy is inevitable. The real enemy of business is the uncertainty created by the current Congress. Industry cannot invest billions of dollars in an uncertain economic and political climate. As a result, we are seeing no significant investment in coal liquefaction or clean coal technology. Rather than standing in the way of a national "cap and trade" system, the Wyoming congressional delegation should be working diligently to ensure that the system is crafted in a manner that is most beneficial to the people of Wyoming.
"Cap and trade" is not the enemy of Wyoming coal or energy prices. I support doubling our domestic coal production as rapidly as possible and ramping up coal liquefaction to reduce gasoline prices and eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. But we can and should only accomplish this feat if we have a national "cap and trade" program in place. Coal liquefaction will produce fuel for less than $50 per equivalent barrel of oil, giving the industry plenty of flexibility to either pay for carbon credits on the "cap and trade" market, or to invest in carbon capture and sequestration. It will also lead to much lower gasoline prices, more jobs, and a stronger economy. We must also work to develop and expand the rest of our energy portfolio -- oil, gas, wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, everything we’ve got -- with a long-term emphasis on sustainability, efficiency and stewardship. It is unacceptable that the United States is dependent upon other countries to meet our energy needs. It
should be our highest national security imperative to become energy independent. We have the technology, we have the resources, and we have the desire. Regrettably, we lack the necessary political leadership.
We can look at our current situation as an energy crisis, or as an energy opportunity. Sen. Enzi has promoted our "wait and see" energy policy for over 11 years. With gasoline now at $4 per gallon, we can’t afford six more years. Let’s stop waiting, roll up our sleeves and make Wyoming a leader in energy policy, not just energy production.
Chris Rothfuss is a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate. Write to him at
www.RothfussForSenate.com.
Reader Comments
Comments to this story.
Idatank wrote on Jun 15, 2008 11:20 AM:
BULL wrote on Jun 15, 2008 6:59 PM:
WYSkippy wrote on Jun 16, 2008 7:34 AM:
CDinWY wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:31 AM:
georgewashakie wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:49 PM:
Ask those located downwind from a mercury contamination site.
Really, are we going to continue this mock battle against global warming by blaming the sun?
1) story comes from the usual sources: limbaugh, inhofe, hannity
2)since Earth is closer to the Sun than Mars and Jupiter, why is the result here not more spectacular than on more distant planets? "
Chris Rothfuss wrote on Jun 22, 2008 10:33 PM:
Idatank - The EU did just finish their third year of a Cap and Trade system. It has plenty of problems, you are correct. Hopefully we would learn from their mistakes as we move forward.
BULL - You are correct, we certainly have some difficult economic problems to address. I believe our energy 'opportunity' would go a long ways towards helping our economy if we can stop the bickering and move forward.
WYSkippy - $50/bbl is the highest price I've actually seen reported, which is why I used it. $30-35 is typical. DOE, under this Administration, estimates around $35/bbl. Sasol has a price point around $15 per barrel. Honestly, if you've invested in a company that is claiming $125/bbl, all I can tell you is that you have my condolences. But you are correct, the Dem controlled congress is currently messing up Coal Liquefaction. We need a path forward. That will require a cap and trade system which will then remove the barriers to CTL implementation.
CDinWY - If we wait until everyone agrees on the cause/effects/existence of Global Warming before we implement a real energy policy, we can say goodbye to our global leadership. We need to move forward. A cap and trade system, if implemented correctly, allows us to move forward. We can continue the Global Warming debate as we establish and maintain our sustainable energy independence.
GeorgeWashakie - Mercury point source effects matter. CO2 point source doesn't appear to - it is a global cumulative effect. Consequently, cap and trade *can* work if designed well. Look at SO2 as a better example of how well it can work.
Thank you all.
Cheers,
-Chris "
Submit a Comment