**[Cap]{.underline}** **Our Economy**

**[And]{.underline}**

**[Trade]{.underline}** **Our Jobs**

 

Dear Colleague:

The Wall Street Journal opinion piece below is well worth reading.  It
outlines the plausibility of meeting CO2 reduction levels. 

Asking our constituents to bear economic costs like these should not
even be considered without verifiable, measurable benefits to our
environment.  This issue is too important to just go along to get along.
Cap and trade will have consequences for our economy and the countless
nations that depend on us for aid.  If we think the answer is to ration
fossil energy use, we can only be assured of capping America's economy
and trading Americans' jobs overseas. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Joe Barton

Member of Congress

**Wall Street Journal**

**OPINION**

**The Real Cost of Tackling Climate Change**

**By STEVEN F. HAYWARD**

**April 28, 2008; Page A19**

The usual chorus of environmentalists and editorial writers has chimed
in to attack President Bush\'s recent speech on climate change. In his
address of April 23, he put forth a goal of stopping the growth of U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2025.

\"Way too little and way too late,\" runs the refrain, followed by the
claim that nothing less than an 80% reduction in emissions by the year
2050 will suffice -- what I call the \"80 by 50\" target. Both Hillary
Clinton and Barack Obama have endorsed it. John McCain is not far
behind, calling for a 65% reduction.

We all ought to reflect on what an 80% reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions by the year 2050 really means. When we do, it becomes clear
that the president\'s target has one overwhelming virtue: Assuming
emissions curbs are even necessary, his goal is at least realistic.

The same cannot be said for the carbon emissions targets espoused by the
three presidential candidates and environmentalists. Indeed, these
targets would send us back to emissions levels last witnessed when the
cotton gin was in daily use.

Begin with the current inventory of carbon dioxide emissions -- CO2
being the principal greenhouse gas generated almost entirely by energy
use. According to the Department of Energy\'s most recent data on
greenhouse gas emissions, in 2006 the U.S. emitted 5.8 billion metric
tons of carbon dioxide, or just under 20 tons per capita. An 80%
reduction in these emissions from 1990 levels means that the U.S. cannot
emit more than about one billion metric tons of CO2 in 2050.

Were man-made carbon dioxide emissions in this country ever that low?
The answer is probably yes -- from historical energy data it is possible
to estimate that the U.S. last emitted one billion metric tons around
1910. But in 1910, the U.S. had 92 million people, and per capita
income, in current dollars, was about \$6,000.

By the year 2050, the Census Bureau projects that our population will be
around 420 million. This means per capita emissions will have to fall to
about 2.5 tons in order to meet the goal of 80% reduction.

It is likely that U.S. per capita emissions were never that low -- even
back in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood. The only
nations in the world today that emit at this low level are all poor
developing nations, such as Belize, Mauritius, Jordan, Haiti and
Somalia.

If that comparison seems unfair, consider that even the least-CO2
emitting industrialized nations do not come close to the 2050 target.
France and Switzerland, compact nations that generate almost all of
their electricity from nonfossil fuel sources (nuclear for France, hydro
for Switzerland) emit about 6.5 metric tons of CO2 per capita.

The daunting task of reaching one billion metric tons of CO2 emissions
by 2050 comes into even greater relief when we look at the American
economy, sector-by-sector. The Energy Department breaks down emissions
into residential, commercial (office buildings, etc.), industrial, and
transportation (planes, trains and automobiles); electricity consumption
is apportioned to each.

Consider the residential sector. At the present time, American
households emit 1.2 billion tons of CO2 -- 20% higher than the entire
nation\'s emissions must be in 2050. If households are to emit no more
than their present share of CO2, emissions will have to be reduced to
204 million tons by 2050. But in 2050, there will be another 40 million
residential households in the U.S.

Today, the average residence in the U.S. uses about 10,500 kilowatt
hours of electricity and emits 11.4 tons of CO2 per year (much more if
you are Al Gore or John Edwards and live in a mansion). To stay within
the magic number, average household emissions will have to fall to no
more than 1.5 tons per year. In our current electricity infrastructure,
this would mean using no more than about 2,500 KwH per year. This is not
enough juice to run the average hot water heater.

You can forget refrigerators, microwaves, clothes dryers and flat screen
TVs. Even a house tricked out with all the latest high-efficiency
EnergyStar appliances and compact fluorescent lights won\'t come close.
The same daunting energy math applies to the industrial, commercial and
transportation sectors as well. The clear implication is that we shall
have to replace virtually the entire fossil fuel electricity
infrastructure over the next four decades with CO2-free sources -- a
multitrillion dollar proposition, if it can be done at all.

Natural gas -- the preferred coal substitute of the moment -- won\'t
come close. If we replaced every single existing coal plant with a
natural gas plant, CO2 emissions from electric power generation alone
would still be more than twice the 2050 target. Most environmentalists
remain opposed to nuclear power, of course. It is unlikely that
renewables -- wind, solar, and biomass -- can ever make up more than
about 20% of our electricity supply.

Suppose, however, that a breakthrough in carbon sequestration, a revival
of nuclear power, and a significant improvement in the cost and
effectiveness of renewables were to enable us to reduce the carbon
footprint of electricity production. That would still leave
transportation.

Right now our cars and trucks consume about 180 billion gallons of motor
fuel. To meet the 2050 target, we shall have to limit consumption of
gasoline to about 31 billion gallons, unless a genuine carbon-neutral
liquid fuel can be produced. (Ethanol isn\'t it.) To show how
unrealistic this is, if the entire nation drove nothing but Toyota
Priuses in 2050, we\'d still overshoot the transportation emissions
target by 40%.

The enthusiasm for an 80% reduction target is often justified on grounds
that national policy should set an ambitious goal. However, claims on
behalf of alternative energy sources -- biofuels, hydrogen, windpower
and so forth -- either do not match up to the scale of the energy
required, or are not cost-competitive in current form.

How on God\'s green earth will we make up the difference? Someone should
put this question to the candidates. And not let them slide past it with
glittering generalities.

**Mr. Hayward is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the
author of the annual \"Index of Leading Environmental Indicators,\" from
which this article is adapted.**