In this article in Newsweek, Karl Rove highlights many reasons why cap-and-trade legislation would be foolish for America. Among them are that it would raise taxes and the price of just about every good produced in the country, and that it would benefit the environment very little. But he mentions one dynamic in particular that I think is too often overlooked:
Cap-and-trade would shift jobs overseas. It would require a larger, more intrusive government bureaucracy, regulating vast swatches of our economy and diminishing innovation, flexibility, and enterprise. Businesses would reduce their cap-and-trade costs by moving jobs to countries without a tax on carbon or a cap on greenhouse emissions. Inevitably some companies would win at the expense of competitors. Nike makes shoes abroad and wouldn’t be affected much by cap-and-trade; New Balance makes them here and would. With its nuclear plants, Exelon backs cap-and-trade because it would fatten its bottom line and stock price. Southern Co. produces most of its energy from coal, so Exelon customers would benefit at the expense of Southern’s. Apple manufactures abroad: its Web site admits that only 3 percent of its greenhouse gases come from its U.S. facilities. So it would fare better than competitors that make their products in America.
Again, is this really the direction America wants to take?