The Waxman-Markey climate change bill, a 1,427-page special-interest wish list, was put together in such a rush that the numbers don’t add up. Sum the percentage of emissions allowances to various special interests in the years 2016 and 2017 and (surprise, surprise) you get a value greater than one hundred. That’s right—the bill allocates nearly a billion dollars worth of allowances over and above the emissions “cap” set for those respective years.
Waxman-Markey doles out emissions allowances to special interests ranging from the natural gas industry to the auto industry. Even tropical rainforests made the list. Electric utilities were the big winners, receiving 43.75 percent of the allowances in 2012 and 2013. Petroleum refiners didn’t fare as well, receiving only 2.25 percent of the emissions allowances from 2014-2026. Evidently, not all special interests are created equal.
The discrepancy in allowance distributions makes a person wonder what the criteria were for allocating the free allowances. It’s a question that deserves an answer.
The allowance oversight is yet another glaring example of the bill’s inability to deliver what its proponents promise. Proponents say it will create jobs; the disastrous economies of Spain and California prove otherwise. Proponents say it will increase productivity; The Brookings Institute predicts a 2.5 percent decline in GDP by 2050. Proponents say it will significantly reduce global temperature; the World Climate Report suggests it would only reduce global temperatures between one and two-tenths of one degree Celsius IF the rest of the world makes equal emissions reductions. Proponents say it will reduce global emissions; China and India are trying to contain their laughter.
In their haste to satisfy time constraints and an aggressive liberal agenda, Democratic House staffers (sleep-deprived and heavily caffeinated, no doubt) threw together a bill that just doesn’t add up—leaving some companies with a golden egg, and others with a giant lump of (clean) coal.