Republicans, reporters, and opponents of climate change regulation are increasingly tapping into a theme that is important policywise, economically, and possibly politically: the fact that a cap-and-trade scheme to curb greenhouse gasses amounts to corporate welfare for financial firms, technology companies, alernative energy companies, and in the case of Waxman-Markey also the big emitters themselves.
A Politico cover story yesterday discussed a Republican strategy of assailing cap-and-trade as corporate welfare for big businesses “guilty of manipulating national climate policy to increase profits on the backs of consumers.” The writers, with obvious skepticism, described this as “a novel way to fight the climate change bill working its way through the House: Tee off on Big Business, and tie it around the neck of the Democrats.”
Bjorn Lomborg had a related op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal, titled “The Climate-Industrial Complex.” Lomborg argues that “The partnership among self-interested businesses, grandstanding politicians and alarmist campaigners truly is an unholy alliance. The climate-industrial complex does not promote discussion on how to overcome this challenge in a way that will be best for everybody.”
Lomborg”s argument is strong and underappreciated, but the political question will be the one that matters. Can Congressional Republicans, fond of calling themselves “pro-business,” and accustomed to defending corporate America from Ralph Nader-type attacks, convincingly argue against corporate-welfare draped in green?
