Edwards statement on global warming legislation in the Senate

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards released the following statement on the Lieberman-Warner bill that was approved yesterday by the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works:

“Addressing global warming is one of the great moral tests of our generation, and it’s time for bold action and leadership to address this crisis that threatens the globe. While I’m glad to see that global warming legislation is finally moving in the Senate, unfortunately the Lieberman-Warner bill doesn’t go far enough to address the crisis of global warming. We cannot be limited in our approach by the armies of lobbyists from big oil companies and other special interests. This bill gives away pollution permits to industry for free – a massive corporate windfall – instead of doing what is right and selling them so that we can use these resources to invest in clean energy research, create a new economy of green jobs, and help regular families and business go green.

“I believe it is our moral obligation to do everything climate science says is needed to save our planet. Ending global warming won't be easy, but it is time to ask Americans to be patriotic about something other than war. If we start taking the bold action I have recommended, we can emerge from the crisis of global warming with an economy built on clean, renewable energy and more than one million new jobs.”

The good: Selling permits can raise government revenue and increase the efficiency of cap-and-trade programs.

The bad: We should do everything that climate science says is needed to save our planet? Yuck.

The ugly: Climate policy won't create jobs. Whenever a politician mentions a government policy and jobs as a measure of its success or lost jobs as a measure of its failure, put your hands over your ears and say "LaLaLaLa, I can't hear you" really loud. Jobs and the environment: the non-issue of any political campaign.

Comments

[James]

I'm sure I've seen this discussed before, but would someone explain the reasoning about government environmental policy not creating/destroying jobs? Great thanks from a non-economist.

[James]

I'm sure I've seen this discussed before, but would someone explain the reasoning about government environmental policy not creating/destroying jobs? Great thanks from a non-economist.

[John Whitehead]

You can find it buried in our 101 discussion of negative externality.