I was going to answer the question in the headline with the classic punchline, "her lips are moving." In this case, however, it's an op-ed in the Washington Post - one filled with distortions, obfuscations, clever-but-meaningless slogans, demagoguery, exaggerations, and a good number of logical fallacies (e.g., non sequitur, red herring, slippery slope, straw man). A few examples.1. The title uses the Republicans' favorite name for cap-and-trade, putting the word "tax" in there to make it sound bad (since nobody likes taxes; kinda like replacing the word "inheritance" with "death" and turning it into "death tax" - so clever!). The fact is, a revenue-neutral carbon tax would be a great option to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and I've strongly advocated that approach. Instead, Congress opted to move in the direction of capping carbon dioxide and then allowing companies to trade rights to emit it. That's fine, as it theoretically achieves the same result in the end (slashing carbon dioxide emissions), but as an economist I'd prefer just getting the price right and letting the market do its thing. Again, though, what this plan most certainly is not is a carbon "tax." Unfortunately.
2. The first paragraph is simply laughable. Yes, there are major threats to our economy. Yes, our nation's debt is probably unsustainable in the long run. And yes, there are worries about job creation. But what any of this has to do with cap-and-trade is beyond me. Last I checked, we're still arguing about cap-and-trade legislation, which means - key point here - it hasn't been passed yet and certainly wasn't in effect when the current recession began during the Bush Administration. As to the nation's debt, that is the result of out-of-control spending combined with huge tax cuts to rich people and corporations, plus the war in Iraq, under Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43. Those Republican three presidents are responsible for almost all of our debt, and that's a fact. What any of this has to do with "cap and trade" is beyond me. And I'm sure it's beyond Sarah Palin as well, but that never stopped her from spouting out nonsensical blather.
3. As to cap-and-trade being "an enormous threat to our economy," as usual in Palin world just take the exact opposite and it's much closer to the truth. In fact, the "enormous threat to our economy" with regard to energy is - as T. Boone Pickens correctly points out - the enormous wealth transfer from America to Saudi Arabia and other oil exporting nations. Another "enormous threat to our economy" is the potential of losing out on what promises to be the most important new industry of the 21st century - energy efficiency and clean, renewable power. Already, we're falling behind China, Germany, Japan, etc., the only question being how much further we're going to fall behind before we get moving in this area.
4. "American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy." Actually, not. If that were the case, then Nigeria, Russia and Venezuela would be three of the most prosperous countries on earth. Saudi Arabia and Iran would be not only prosperous but also politically free. So much for that theory. In fact, what's made America prosperous has mostly to do with our rule of law, our system of government, our entrepreneurial culture, and most importantly our human capital. If Sarah Palin believes that coal mining is what makes us prosperous, she really needs to take a trip to Appalachia sometime and see the result of decades of mountaintop removal, etc. The only question is whether it's "poverty" or "dire poverty."
5. "But the answer doesn't lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive!" This is so stupid, it's almost not even worth wasting a few precious moments of my life to respond. The fact is, what cap and trade is place a (declining) limit on the emission of carbon dioxide. Under cap and trade, fuels that are carbon-intensive (coal being highly carbon intensive, oil to a lesser degree) become relatively (and absolutely) more expensive, while fuels that are not so carbon intensive (or not at all) like natural gas, wind, solar, nuclear, and of course energy efficiency (the lowest of low-hanging fruits) become relatively (and most likely absolutely as well) less expensive. In addition, what we have under cap and trade is a major incentive for industries that rely on carbon-intensive fuels to: a) become far more efficient in their use; and b) to work on capturing the carbon so that it doesn't just spew into the atmosphere. All of these are good things, especially as the energy revolution kicked off by cap and trade gathers momentum. In a few decades, what we could easily have in America is a nation that is free from foreign oil, powered by clean energy produced domestically, extremely efficient in its use of energy (efficiency=cost savings=more profit), and relatively more reliant on human capital rather than a third-world-style economy based on resource extraction. Which do you prefer?
6. "Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan." To the contrary, what cap and trade does is help kick start an economic revolution towards clean technology and green jobs, which ultimately will result in millions of good, new jobs, most of which can't possibly be outsourced (e.g., weatherization, installing wind turbines off the coast of Virginia). Again, as usual with Sarah Palin, take the opposite and you're closer to the truth. If we stick with the current energy paradigm, we're almost certain to decline as a great power during the 21st century, supplanted by countries that "get it." This choice, frankly, is as big of a "no brainer" as "no brainers" get.
7. Finally, the concept that we can "drill our way out of it" has been completely debunked so many times (by petroleum geologists and just about anyone who knows anything on this subject - Sarah Palin apparently not being one of those people) that it's barely worth talking about. In brief, though, the fact is that the majority of proven, conventional world oil reserves is located in the Middle East, with most of the rest in places like Russia, Venezuela, Libya, Algeria and Nigeria. What about the United States? Well, we've got a whopping 1.6% of proven world oil reserves, while accounting for over 20% of world oil consumption. In stark contrast, the United States is consider the "Saudi Arabia of wind power," particularly in the Great Plains states and off the coasts. Finally, there's enormous potential in reducing our energy intensity - aka, consuming less energy to produce a dollar of GDP. That would be a huge positive economically, and cap and trade helps us get there.
Anyway, I could go on and on here, but frankly I've got better things to do - dust the house, clean up dog poop, pretty much ANYTHING - than waste precious moments of my life responding to Sarah Palin's idiocies.
P.S. Also see "A response to Sarah Palin column on cap-and-trade".
UPDATE: Media Matters demolishes Palin's pathetic op-ed, as does Climate Progress. And this is most excellent parody; check it out!
UPDATE #2: John Kerry annhilates Palin's argument, if we can even call it an argument.
