Email this Page

Name
Email Address
Friend's Name
Friend's Email
Enter the Above Characters:

close

Energy and Environment

 What is the Government’s Role in the Environment?

 Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the authority to force complex environmental regulations on individuals and businesses, meddling in economic activity? Was the environment protected in the Bill of Rights? Is global warming a real threat or is it simply being used to strike fear into people over natural cycles of climate change that have always occurred? What exactly is “cap and trade” and why is it an example of unconstitutional government intervention? Environmental policy is yet another area where the federal government is willing to exceed its constitutional bounds and meddle in the economy in the name of “saving the earth” or “creation care.” Therefore, it's important to be familiar with the main issues and how they relate to the Constitution and the foundational role of government.

Global Warming – Former Vice President Al Gore refers to global warming as a “planetary emergency—a crisis that threatens the survival of our civilization and the habitability of the Earth.”[i] Science does not support the scary predictions by Al Gore and other proponents of increased intervention in the economy to fight global warming. There is no compelling reason to believe that increases in temperature are caused by an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2). C.D. Idso and K.E. Idso write, “[I]t is highly unlikely that future increases in the air's CO2 content will produce any global warming; for there are numerous problems with the popular hypothesis that links the two phenomena.”[ii] Yet, global warming alarmists continue to broadcast their propaganda through the press, with hopes to cause people to become open to the government stepping in more areas of our lives and the free market in order to “fix” this “planetary emergency.”

Anti-Free-Market Policy: Cap and Trade

Cap and Trade is expensive and is a direct threat to the free market economy. The Institute for Energy Research (IER), www.instituteforenergyresearch.org, states that cap and trade aims to cap emissions of carbon dioxide at a politically-determined level and then have the users and producers of oil, coal, and natural gas buy, sell, and trade their allowance to emit a given amount of carbon dioxide. IER also offers the following reasons why this is bad policy:

Eight Reasons why Cap and Trade is a Bad Idea[iii]:

1. The point of cap and trade is to increase the price of energy.
2. Cap and trade schemes for carbon dioxide have not worked to reduce emissions.
3. Cap and trade will harm the poor.
4. Cap and trade harms energy security.
5. Cap and trade for sulfur dioxide emissions is not comparable to cap and trade for carbon dioxide.
6. A domestic cap and trade program, even in the best case, can only produce marginal impacts on climate.
7. A domestic cap and trade program will force more industries to leave America.
8. A cap that is set at the wrong level will cause great economic harm. 

Climate change is something that has always occurred, and it’s important to think long term before we begin increasing government regulation to “fight” global warming. Energy policy has been an area the government has been using to slowing increases its role and authority. Yet, most “environmental policies” do more harm than good. Increasingly, when the federal government offers money to state and local governments, additional environmental regulations accompany the funds.

Burdensome regulations – Government regulations and administrative procedures prevent newer developments in nuclear energy. Legislation requiring states to get a certain percentage of their energy from wind, solar, coal, etc… prevents the free market from determining and promoting whichever is the most efficient. Furthermore, federal subsidies for ethanol and requirements for automakers that emit less carbon also alter natural free-market activity.

Invisible hand – The more we try to address every environmental (or other) challenge with another specific regulation, the more we restrict the natural self-adapting mechanisms of a society based on a free market. Burdensome and complicated environmental regulations have become an overwhelming hindrance to businesses small and large. The free-market “invisible hand” should be left to bring forth innovations in energy and the environment rather than “top down” government intervention.

Conclusion – Climate change is not a crisis. History has shown cycles of climate change – and increased government “corrections” to the environment are unlikely to halt such cycles. Cap and trade would do far more harm than good, and would directly attack free-market capitalism. It is important to understand these issues so that climate change is not just another opportunity for big-government advocates to use fear to facilitate an increased reliance on government answers to challenges.