Cap and Trade in Oregon: All Pain, No Gain
By Eric Fruits, Ph.D.
The Oregon legislature is expected to pass a carbon cap-and-trade bill this session.
While there is some agreement that climate change can have a negative impact on livability in the Pacific Northwest and throughout much of the world, there has been little attention paid to how little Oregon contributes to worldwide carbon emissions.
Oregon emitted about 65 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2017. By way of comparison, total global emissions were about 37 billion metric tons. That means that Oregon accounts for less than two-tenths of one percent of global emissions. About one six-hundredth. That’s tiny.
In other words, even if Oregon were to reduce carbon emissions to zero, the state would do virtually nothing to change worldwide carbon emissions, which means it would do virtually nothing to slow or stop global climate change.
At the same time, the cap-and-trade program would hit the pocketbooks of every Oregonian. An earlier version of the bill estimated the state would sell about $700 million a year of carbon permits, with the costs passed on the consumers and businesses.
Oregon’s cap-and-trade bill fails the basic cost-benefit test: The costs of cap-and-trade to everyday Oregonians would be exceptionally high while doing nothing to stop or slow climate change.
Eric Fruits, Ph.D. is Vice President of Research at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.
Click here for PDF version:
Climate Change Alarmists Can’t Get Their Story Straight
By John A. Charles, Jr.
Relying on computer models to predict the future has always been risky. Now we know it’s the basis of climate change securities fraud as well.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) recently wrote the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that several California cities have claimed in lawsuits against oil and gas companies that those companies failed to disclose known climate risks associated with fossil fuel use. Yet those same cities have made bond offerings in which they tell potential investors that it is impossible to predict future risks of climate change.
For example, San Francisco predicts in its lawsuit against the oil industry that it will be subjected to as much as 0.8 feet of additional sea level rise by 2030, with short-term costs of $500 million and long-term costs of $5 billion. Yet the City tells potential bond investors, “The City is unable to predict whether seal-level rise will occur.”
The County of Santa Cruz claims in its fossil fuel lawsuit that there is “a 98% chance that the County experiences a devastating three-foot flood before the year 2050.” Meanwhile, in efforts to sell its own municipal bonds, the County reassures investors that it is unable to predict such floods.
This confirms what has long been suspected: Climate change alarmists just make stuff up to scare the public.
John A. Charles, Jr. is President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.
Click here for the PDF version:
2-20-18-Climate_Change_Alarmists_Can’t_Get_Their_Story_Straight
Testimony on HB 4001/SB 1507 Regarding Energy Rationing for Environmental Quality
Testimony of John A. Charles, Jr.
President & CEO, Cascade Policy Institute
Regarding HB 4001/SB 1507
February 7, 2018
Members of the Committee: I have spent the last 45 years of my life promoting environmental quality. I began my career working for the Environmental Defense Fund, a group that was an early innovator in market-based mechanisms. From 1980 through 1996 I was CEO of Oregon Environmental Council, where I helped pass dozens of environmental laws. Since 1997 I have worked for Cascade Policy Institute, promoting concepts such as congestion pricing of roads.
If I thought that HB 4001 and SB 1507 could deliver significant pollution reductions at reasonable cost I would support them, but they will not. To summarize the problem in one sentence, the bills require Oregonians to pay a significant tax that will be certain, immediate, and local; for benefits that are speculative, long-term, and global.
This stands in sharp contrast to environmental policies such as drinking water regulations. Provision of safe drinking water does have a major cost, but the benefits are substantial and they accrue 100% to those who pay. Oregonians are quite willing to bear the expense of such programs because they demonstrably make us all better off. This will never be the case with carbon dioxide regulation.
Moreover, even assuming that reducing CO2 has some local benefit, the relevant trends are already moving in the right direction. According to the most recent legislative report from the Oregon Global Warming Commission, the “carbon intensity” of Oregon’s economy – that is, greenhouse gas emissions/unit of state GDP – dropped 64% from 1990 through 2015. This is a spectacular achievement, and it is driven almost entirely by market forces.
Last week the Environmental Protection Agency released its latest update of automobile emissions trends for carbon dioxide. The report shows that CO2 emissions per mile for all motor vehicles sold in 2017 were the lowest since the agency began collecting data in 1975.
For truck SUVs, the reduction since 1975 was 50%. For minivans it was 51%. For standard passenger cars it was 55%. Almost miraculously, automakers have produced the cleanest cars in history while also making them safer and more pleasant to drive than the 1975 models.
There is no crisis in Oregon regarding CO2 emissions. The trends are positive and long-term. This is a case where you should simply “do no harm” by staying out of the way.
John A. Charles, Jr. is President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.
Click here for the PDF version: