The Economist’s U.S. correspondent, who writes under the nom de plume of “Lexington,” is exasperated about the lack of straight talk from Congressional advocates for government limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Lexington believes in taking action, with the most straightforward way being a carbon tax. But, since the public regards taxes as bad, politicians “waffle and obfuscate” on energy policy.

From “The myth of green jobs“:

John Kerry, who is neither stupid nor ignorant, claims not to know what “cap and trade” means. 

And Barbara Boxer, asked what the government should do to create jobs, said we should pass an energy bill, ie, the cap and trade bill that dare not speak its name. This, she said, would “allow this economy to take off“.

For heaven’s sake. The point of putting a cap or a tax on carbon emissions is to curb carbon emissions, thereby saving the planet from cooking. It is not about creating jobs. It will certainly create some, but it will destroy plenty, too.

Both presidential candidates last year vigorously promoted the notion that halting climate change will not merely be painless but will actually provide a huge boost to the economy. Kevin Hassett explains why this is nonsense. 

If politicians insist on pretending that everything is a free lunch, they should not be surprised if a) many voters don’t believe them and b) the rest get angry when the bill arrives. 

The Senate bill sets a target of reducing C02 emissions by 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. The House bill set a target of a 17. The NAM and the American Council for Capital Formation analyzed the House bill, Waxman-Markey, and found the legislation would result in up to 2.4 million lost jobs, higher energy prices for businesses and consumers, and cumulative GDP losses of up to 3.1 trillion dollars over an 18-year period.

Yeah, for heaven’s sake.

In today’s Hartford Courant, an op-ed by David Ridenour of the National Center for Public Policy Research, “Green Mandates Burden Economy“:

When our economic bus is teetering at the edge of a cliff, it’s a bad time to throw on some extra weight.

Yet government-mandated restrictions on carbon emissions would do precisely that, adding enormous additional weight to an economy already reeling. This additional weight shouldn’t just be thrown from the bus — it should be thrown under it.

And from respected columnist Michael Barone, prognosticating on the political agenda under a possible Obama presidency and Democratic-controlled Congress, “Obama’s Wish List“:

Much of the next Congress’s time and psychic energy will be taken up with refashioning financial regulation — a subject of considerable difficulty. And the looming recession will make it politically risky for Democrats to push big spending programs.

This means that Congress in the next two years may not pass Obama’s national health-insurance plan. The weakening economy and the enraged reaction earlier this year to $4-a-gallon gasoline also make it less likely that Congress will pass carbon reduction legislation — certainly not a carbon tax and probably not a cap-and-trade system.

Perhaps we get a test of the theory — economic reality winning against environmental mongering — in Tuesday’s California election, specifically Proposition 10, which authorizes sale of $5 billion in bonds to finance rebates for buying alternative-fuel vehicles and research into renewable fuels. From The LosAngeles Daily News, “Bond measures facing hard sell in time of economic crisis“:

Backers say 10 would help reduce California’s greenhouse-gas emissions blamed for global warming, improve air quality and jump-start the market for alternative-fuel vehicles.

But opponents say the state can’t afford the bond measure, which would eventually cost $9.8 billion, or about $325 million annually, over 30 years.

Afterthought: Come to think of it, California probably couldn’t afford it, even if there weren’t any financial crisis.

UPDATE (1 p.m.): Should have thought to check on California’s ongoing budget collapse. From CMTA.net:

Oct. 31 , 2008
The Governor announced this week that he will call the Legislature to a Special Session to address the state’s fast growing deficit.  Estimates of the shortfall for this year has grown from $3 billion to $10 billion or more as the state brings in lower than expected tax revenues and experiences higher costs due to the continued slide of the global economy.

You would think that a $10 billion deficit would put a crimp on social engineering, but it’s California.

From The Economist, “No Change for Canada“:

IT IS an emphatic victory, even if the ruling party has failed, again, to secure a majority in parliament. Results from the general election held on Tuesday October 14th suggest that the Conservatives, led by Stephen Harper, have secured 143 of the 308 seats in the House of Commons, a gain of 16 seats. The Liberal Party, led by Stéphane Dion, has suffered a serious defeat, picking up just 76 seats.

From the U.K. Telegraph:

The Liberals were handed a sound defeat on the issue of the environment, especially a carbon tax to fight global warming.

“I don’t believe that it will completely die, but it’s tough to see it being advanced by the Conservatives after they campaigned so stridently against it,” said Doug Porter, an economist with BMO Capital Markets.

“I suspect that given the current financial market turmoil, the likelihood of at least a moderate North American recession, and the unpopularity of the B.C. carbon tax, that a national carbon tax will be put aside for some time.”

Globe and Mail columnist Gary Mason, “The environment was not a winning issue on this campaign trail“:

It may be some time before we again see a political leader in Canada brave enough to build a campaign platform around saving the environment.

The world economic crisis that may take a few years to fix has something to do with that. But so, too, does the outcome of last night’s federal election, which saw the Conservatives returned to power, partly on the back of Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion’s muddled message on the environment.

Watching closely, no doubt, was B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell, who heads into an election of his own in the spring having to defend an unpopular carbon tax he has so far vowed to maintain. Of course, Mr. Dion’s much-mocked Green Shift environmental proposal also included a carbon tax, one he never had much success promoting on the campaign trail.

Results from CBC.

From The Associated Press, as reported in today’s Washington Post, “Canadian Leader Faces Election Test“:

TORONTO, Oct. 12 — Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is gambling that an opposition pushing an unpopular carbon tax will steer voters to the right in Tuesday’s election and bolster his hold on power…[snip]

The signature issue of Liberal leader Stéphane Dion is a proposal for a carbon tax on all fossil fuels except gasoline.

Conservatives say the “Green Shift” tax plan would drive up energy costs. Dion has said he would offset the higher energy prices by cutting income taxes, but he has had little success selling the plan.

OK, here’s how we see it. If the Tories win big, it’s because the voters recoiled against the carbon tax. If the Tories underperform and the Liberals record a surprisingly strong turnout, it’s because of…well, the carbon tax had nothing to do with it.

On a serious note, Prime Minister Harper has been a consistent, firm and persuasive advocate for the benefits of free trade. We appreciate his leadership.

 Not that we’re suggesting it or anything, but those people who say a carbon tax would be simpler than the Lieberman-Warner regime? They have a point.

Above is a chart portraying the mandates and regulations involved in the Boxer amendment to S. 3036. Kudos to the U.S. Chamber for putting it together to illustrate the horrendous expansion of government that Lieberman-Warner would entail.

You can see the full document here.

UPDATE (9:58 p.m.): The Chilling Effect blog comments, leading us to ask which is more likely: A plague of locusts or a plague of regulations?