Standing Athwart Waxman-Markey


In today’s Wall Street Journal, Pete DuPont peels back the layers of the disaster-in-waiting that is the Waxman-Markey energy bill. His conclusion: massive government intrusion into our lives, unlikely new nuclear-energy projects, cap-and-trade permits that send trillions of dollars to the federal government to play with, and protectionist carbon tariffs. The main point: Waxman-Markey means higher energy and electricity prices. It means less energy, not more. 

If Americans don’t start paying attention to what Congress is up to, our nation’s energy policy may seriously change for the worse. A bill styled the American Clean Energy and Security Act, sponsored by Democrats Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts, soon goes before the House. The enactment of laws to combat global warming is an established priority of the new administration and Congress, and their impact on the lives and opportunities of America’s people would be substantial and detrimental.

As Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute noted last month, “Waxman-Markey would put big government in charge of how much energy people can use. It would be the biggest government intervention in people’s lives since the second world war, which was the last time people had to have rationing coupons in order to buy a gallon of gas.”

The Waxman-Markey plan intends to give the federal government near-total control of America’s energy supplies and usage. Depending upon how the allowances are organized, it may also create the largest redistribution of money from American families to the federal government since the creation of the American income tax. To keep America prospering, our economy growing, and jobs expanding, we need not less energy, but more of it; not higher energy prices but lower ones; and more energy generation through nuclear power, clean coal and offshore oil and gas as well as possible new energy sources. Waxman-Markey will take us in one direction, but to keep America prospering we need to go in the opposite one.


Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review