Cap and trade won't bankrupt us

I would like to question statements made in a recent letter to the Herald by Donn Dears concerning the current proposals to use market-based systems to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In his letter, Dears appears to argue that these are all due to the efforts of an "environmental-industrial complex" and states that they will result in shortages and rationing. Instead of providing any supporting evidence for these dire predictions, Mr. Dears merely states "It's clear."

Contrary to what may be implied in the letter, the use of market-based cap and trade systems as a method of emission control is not new. The most obvious instance was its use in 1990 under Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments as part of the drive to reduce acid rain. Despite similar dire predictions made at that time about the collapse of the energy industry, neither shortages nor rationing resulted. The program was very successful and continues today.

Two recent studies on the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act by nonpartisan groups, the Congressional Budget Office and the MIT Joint Program on Science and Policy of Global Change, did not predict energy shortages or loss of jobs.

To be clear, both studies do predict some costs to the American public. But taking responsibility for our actions almost always results in some type of costs to us.

In the City of Geneva, we currently pay to treat waste water. Why don't we just avoid this "additional cost" and dump the sewage directly into the river, letting it flow away from our city?

There can be many reasons stated, but they all boil down to the idea that in the case of water, the American public decided that we needed to be responsible for the costs to clean the waste we created. In the case of greenhouse gas emissions, the American public may or may not choose to take the same responsibility. But we should make that decision based on facts, on science and on clear arguments.

Tom Carter

Geneva