Skip to main content

The Outer Limits of Debate

michelebachmannb_10x15 Congress is barely grazing over the energy issues that will doubtless absorb them more as the year goes along, so we thought we wouldn’t be able to declare the outer limits of this debate for quite some time. By “outer limits,” we simply mean the most extreme position imaginable for or against an emerging policy.

We may have found the outer limits on cap-and trade, per Smart Politics:

“I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people – we the people – are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.”

This is Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) (Smart Politics operates from the University of Minnesota).

We’re genuinely surprised that anyone can gin up this level of rhetoric on cap-and-trade – maybe Bachmann just goes to the outer limits on any given topic.


We wandered over to her Web site to see what’s what and found that she is hosting a public hearing on cap-and-trade in St. Cloud on April 9. You can find out about that here.


Bachmann also has a blog and posted a bit more on the subject:

President Obama’s current proposal aims to cut carbon emissions by more than 3 times that of last year’s proposal – 83%. John Feehery, writing in The Hill's Pundits Blog last week, noted that using Director Orszag’s analysis, this would mean that the average family will pay close to $4,000 a year, or $333 a month.

The White House seems to acknowledge that the costs of this tax will impact low-income families hardest and suggests a $500-a-year subsidy. But, that doesn’t even cover two-months cost for the average family. And, it doesn’t take into account the increased costs for everything from groceries to school supplies that a carbon tax will also impose on everyone.

To be honest, this doesn’t really scan. Bachmann is extrapolating, along with Feehery, what the average family would pay at a point of 83 percent carbon reduction without taking account of the replacement technologies – including nuclear energy – that would mitigate costs considerably. And that point is still over a decade away.

Also, calling this a tax isn’t really on the nose:  you can create a tax on carbon emissions directly; it’s actually considered a more liberal, or business-unfriendly, route than cap-and trade. Cap-and-trade creates a market for credits that can benefit energy producers and consumers (while, admittedly, punishing other energy producers and consumers.) Calling it a tax is more political than accurate.

We’re not quite sure of Bachmann’s stance here – it seems populist in nature, but not really fully thought out enough to make it functional. She seems to doubt the science behind climate change, but also favors energy efficiency.

We expect it will become more coherent as the subject becomes more central. Maybe that hearing in St. Cloud will clarify her position a bit more.

Herself. Finding a relaxed picture of Rep. Bachmann proved a bit tough. She’s obviously quite the firebrand. With Al Franken and Jesse Ventura (and Walter Mondale and Paul Wellstone), Minnesota has a fascinating political culture.


Anonymous said…
don't count on any coherence coming from Michelle. It's kinda hard to determine if she says stuff like that to make noise or really believes it.
Max Epstein said…
I've read quite a bit of the modeling results on cap/trade, including from Orszag's CBO last year, and $4000/yr/household sounded really high. When I read the blog post I couldn't believe how foolish an extrapolation it was.

Orszag was testifying regarding Cap/Trade proposals floating around Congress at the time. I wish he had given a time frame, but considering that the relevant bills would have reduced emissions 15% by around 2020, I think its a fair assumption that was his time frame.

Obama's cap/trade certainly does not propose cutting carbon emissions 83% by 2020. Even if it did that would be an asinine extrapolation. But to say because a 15% by 2020 cut costs $X/yr that an 83% by 2050 costs 4X/yr is incomprehensibly stupid to me. Again, Orszag's time frame might not have been 2020 exactly,(2022? "ten years?") but it certainly wasn't 15% by 2050 because that would have had no bearing on any of the legislation the Congressmen were interested in.
Robert Synnott said…
This would seem to be par for the course for her; she's generally a bit of a nut. Other hobbies include pushing for 'intelligent design' in schools, and making up nonsense about Iraq. Oh, and of course, an unreasoning fear of homosexuals and gambling.

She's the one who called for an investigation into who in Congress was 'pro-American' and who 'anti-American'. You really should not expect any sort of sense out of her.
Anonymous said…
Seems like she's missing the point - the root cause here is that the carbon emitters are now getting a free ride - the costs associated with their pollution do not appear in the costs of their goods & services. So, we are all paying now for that (sick time, disintegrating paint and infrastructure decay, etc etc). "Good" legislation would end that, while costing us individually no more than we're paying now (and even less, if the legislation is really good).
David Walters said…
She hasn't a clue...about much. She's an embarrassment to even the most conservative of Republicans in Congress. I've seen here on c-span and you-tube. It's like a skit from SNL.

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…