Sins of Emmission

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi might or might not fancy herself an admirer of Thomas Jefferson, but she clearly does not share his belief that great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities. Despite strenuous efforts on behalf of a cause she fervently advocates, she could barely muster enough votes to ram through the Waxman-Markey energy bill -- a 1,200-page leviathan of ludicrous complexity and scope.

If most of those who voted on the bill have a limited understanding of its contents, then the American public has even less. A Rasmussen poll taken while Congress was debating the measure revealed that only 24 percent knew that the congressional cap-and-trade proposal dealt with something environmental. Twenty-nine percent of voters thought it had to do with regulating Wall Street; 17 percent thought it related to health care -- and 30 percent didn't have the foggiest clue.

The cap-and-trade provision makes up a significant part of Waxman-Markey, but only one part. It would, by 2020, cap greenhouse-gas emissions at levels 17 percent below what they were in 2005. By 2050, it would (supposedly) force carbon emissions down to 83 percent below what they were in 2005. It would establish a complex set of tradeable carbon credits, create a market for their exchange (as well as the inevitable regulatory apparatus to oversee the market), and establish a system of carbon "offsets" that industry could purchase to expiate some of its sins of emission, much as people in the Middle Ages could buy indulgences to absolve themselves of sins of the flesh.

. . .

That, however, is like saying Moby-Dick is a story about a fishing trip.

Waxman-Markey imposes a wide range of mandates that are astoundingly sweeping in scope yet absurdly excruciating in detail. On pages 105-106 of the bill -- i.e., about 9 percent into it -- in a fairly typical section relating to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, one finds that "the Administrator shall, at the direction of the Secretary of Energy, provide allowances allocated pursuant to section [782(i)] to applicants, joint sponsors, and automobile manufacturers pursuant to sections 122 and 123 of this Act. In each of the years 2012 through 2017, one-quarter of the portion of the allowances allocated pursuant to section 782(i) of the Clean Air Act shall be available to carry out paragraph (1) such that (A) one-eighth of the portion shall be available to carry out section 122; and (B) one-eighth of the portion shall be available to carry out section 123 . . . ."

On and on roll the dictates, like the waves of a mighty sea, specifying how much energy the producers of electricity shall obtain from renewable resources in any given year, and how much leeway trade-vulnerable industries will be given ("Pursuant to the Inslee-Doyle program," says one account, "energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries that make products like iron, steel, cement, and paper will receive allowances to cover their increased costs. The number of allowances set aside for this program will equal 15 percent of the allowances in 2014 and then decrease based on the percent reductions in the carbon emissions cap . . . ."), and how much effort shall be directed at preventing deforestation (5 percent of allowances from 2012 through 2025, 3 percent in 2026, etc.), and so on and so on and so inexorably on.

Waxman-Markey contains a host of provisions that have yet to receive any real discussion. For instance, it would force all states to adopt a national energy-efficient building code that would require new buildings to be 30 percent more efficient in 2012 -- i.e., less than three years from now. It would impose stringent new standards on household appliances. It would dictate new lighting for outdoor spaces such as parking lots -- again, by 2012. For some economic players, the bill will be a government-imposed bonanza. For others, it could mean government-imposed bankruptcy.

. . .

To win passage, Rep. Henry Waxman engaged in an unprecedented -- even for Washington -- amount of back-scratching and logrolling, the full extent of which is still not clear. But note as symptomatic the fact that Florida Democrat Alan Grayson withheld his support for the bill until Democrats agreed to a $50 million national hurricane center in his central-Florida district. (Because, evidently, the National Hurricane Center run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -- which is located in Miami -- is not good enough.)

We have not yet even touched on the economic effects of Waxman-Markey. Suffice to say they would be extraordinarily complex and far-reaching, and certainly not helpful. Although a great deal about Waxman-Markey remains murky, this much is clear: Its whole objective consists in raising the costs of energy, which in turn will raise the costs of everything else. It amounts to a massive, and mostly hidden, tax.

If the American people had an inkling of what it contained, a majority would surely object. If the U.S. Senate has an iota of sense, it will swiftly do the same. We would like to think it sailed through the House in part because members expect their Senate counterparts to do the hard work of making the hard decisions. This is known as passing the buck. Speaker Pelosi proved she is in charge, and maybe that is the most important point.