President Barack Obama is torn between the competing interests of two major supporters.  One, the Democrat Governor of Massachusetts and early campaign supporter Deval Patrick to build a windfarm off the coast of Cape Cod; the other, Senator Edward Kennedy whose ocean view would be changed by the proposed renewable facility.  In an article posted on Brietbart.com, it is clear that the roadmap to renewable energy has many tears, regardless of the political party.

If the President is set on spending trillions of dollars in stimulus over the next two years,  he ought to invest in infrastructure that will secure our energy independence.  This project will be litmus test of that intention.

Perhaps windmills will annoy elites with ocean front property–similar things must have occurred when Eisenhower built out the national highway system.  Good for Obama is that allowing this project to proceed will have the double benefit of securing renewable energy, and snubbing a special intrest group…if it gets approved.

When we start calling bureaucrats “czars” is it any wonder that we attract socialists?

The Washington Times has just uncovered the dirt on Barack Obama’s earth friendly pick for climate change Czar(ina)

This may prove to be one of the most difficult jobs in the new administration in terms of criticism and public attacks.  There will be roadblocks placed from the front by those who disagree about how to regulate carbon emissions, and then there will be many of volleys of arrows launch from the back by the environmental lobby who cant stand to think that any person but them could make money by cleaning up the Earth.

Obama transition spokesman Nick Shapiro said  that “Carol Browner was chosen to help the president-elect coordinate energy and climate policy because she understands that our efforts to create jobs, achieve energy security and combat climate change demand integration among different agencies; cooperation between federal, state and local governments; and partnership with the private sector.”

Those are good priorities for the office of “climate change czar,” but socialists are certainly not the ones who will make real progress on environmental problems.  Without regulating our economy further back into the pre-industrial age (god save us from recession),  there will need to be well managed and directed investments made by the private sector to update power plants, invent new energy saving technologies, discover new ways to trap and store green house gas etc.  The real changes come from investment by entrepreneurs who develop new methods and new technology, then apply them to make a profit.  Sorry, that is just how it works.

In the words of Robert Kennedy, “Obama’s vision of de-carbonizing our economy begins with a market-based carbon cap-and-trade system designed to put downward pressure on carbon emissions. He will invest billions to revamp the nation’s antiquated high-voltage power transmission system and press for cost-saving building and appliance standards that would cut our energy demand by half.”  These are goals every free market advocate could agree with.

This writer just hopes Obama’s newpick does not forget to do first things first, especially as the arrows begin to fly.

The best way to reduce greenhouse gasses is to build a marketplace for emissions that sets a price for pollution, not attempt to command and control behaviors through regulations.  Right now, there is talk of an EPA tax on greenhouse gas that would charge farmers around $150 for each cow and up to $20 per pig based upon their relative carbon footprints (New York Farm Bureau estimates).

This is a bad idea.  The tax will have no effect except to raise the price of farming and food products, and drive more family farms out of business.  The result will not be a reduction in greenhouse gas, rather a new burden for families trying to buy food and more destruction of the working landscape that connects Americans with the land.

First, where would the money from such a tax go?  Please don’t tell me that it will go into a “technology fund.”   That is simple political code for being lost in a bureaucracy.  The investments that need to occur in order to clean up the methane from these dairies are being made right now by entrepreneurs who see a valuable energy and environmental resource in the manure.

Second, this proposed tax is a misplaced penalty.  A good politician knows that taxing things is a good way to reduce them, and incentives are a good way increases a behavior.  Taxing cows will harm our single best source of milk…farms!  Instead, there should be a framework for creating incentives for measurable reductions in CO2.  That will let farmers figure out the best way for their farm to keep producing milk and to reduce CO2.  If farmers and investors are allowed to buy and sell their reduced pollution (create a carbon offset), then they will invest private money in the projects, and implement them in an efficient way.

At Standard Carbon, we are 100% in favor of reducing greenhouse gasses, but we are not in favor of destroying the livelihoods of American farmers or singling out and crippling the industries that create jobs and opportunity in our country.   We can have economic and environmental prosperity at the same time if we use a market based approach like cap and trade.