Redemption

by Sally Fernandez

  Hank ignored his humor and countered, “According to a study by the Economic Policy Institute, twenty-six percent of all clean-energy jobs fall into the manufacturing sector and those jobs are more accessible to workers without a college education. It’s also projected that those jobs will come with higher wages, producing a positive effect. Seymour, how can you argue that point?”

  “It’s a false premise, because the manufacturing sector has been converting to more efficient technology for years, requiring fewer skilled workers. Ultimately, they force the unemployed skilled workers to settle for low-wage positions. Chase alluded to that earlier when he spoke about the STEM jobs.”

  “Another study,” Chase pointed out, “coincidently from Baari’s alma mater, concurs with Seymour’s premise that green jobs are not synonymous with productivity. In fact, the University of Illinois School of Law and Economics go so far as to say that ‘economic growth cannot be ordered by Congress or by the United Nations.’ Hold on—let me read this:

  ‘By promoting more jobs instead of more productivity… encourage low-paying jobs in less desirable conditions… Government interference—such as restricting successful technologies in favor of speculative technologies favored by special interests—will generate stagnation.’

  Which is the situation we are tackling now. They also highlight that,

  ‘Some technologies preferred by the green jobs studies are not capable of efficiently reaching the scale necessary to meet today’s demands and could be counterproductive to environmental quality.’”

  Paolo, who had also examined the report, retrieved it from his tablet and added, “The University of Illinois study specifically stated that,

  ‘Government mandates are not a substitute for free markets. Companies react more swiftly and efficiently to the demands of their customers and markets, than to cumbersome government mandates. Also imposing technological progress by regulation is not desirable.’”

  “I agree; companies are not suicidal,” Hank admitted. “They want to perpetuate their enterprise.”

  “Then let’s focus our attention on industry-specific jobs. Thus far, we have touched on the effects of eliminating coal,” Chase noted. “What about oil and natural gas?”

  “I’d like to take that question,” Noble volunteered. “I recently worked on a case where I became rather educated on the subject.”

  He noted their look of surprise as they tried to figure out how the subject matter fit into his bailiwick. He gave them a moment to gather their attention. Then he explained that coal production at that time provided about twenty-four percent of the energy consumption and that today, oil and natural gas provide approximately sixty-five percent of the energy.

  “You saw what the impact was on the industry,” he noted and then clarified, “This market, however, is a tad more complicated and volatile. In fact, in the past few years, job loss is less of a problem than job creation.”

  “Even with the backlash from the environmental groups?” Seymour asked.

  “Surprisingly, there have been periodic surges. To date, there are nine million people employed in this industry, many in positions that only require a high school education, yet they receive above average wages. But it’s unpredictable. What’s not—is our need to become energy-independent, as you highlighted.

  “We all agree. So what’s the point?” Hank asked, eager to move the discussion.

  “My point is that there are policies in play that retard that need,” Noble replied.

  Hank appeared to be coming around to the realities, but Noble continued to press the point. “We already possess proven technologies that provide for clean production of oil and gas that can be produced right here in the U.S. Hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’ as many call it, is a safe, effective means to extract oil and gas from below the earth’s surface. But it continues to meet resistance, despite study after study to support its safety. There are over two-point-six-million miles of pipeline traversing the country. But when the Keystone pipeline required eight-hundred-fifty-two miles of new pipeline, the environmentalists protested. Fortunately, Canada resisted the Chinese and local options. Now the pipeline is underway. But the political bickering caused delays and cost thousands of jobs at a crucial time.”

  “So we need to be smarter in all realms of energy production,” Hank conceded. “It’s evident that in the foreseeable future we cannot rely exclusively on solar and wind.”

  For fear of losing their attention, especially Hank’s, Noble brought his point to a quick close. “Precisely, because those renewable energy sources lack the technology for long-term energy storage. When the wind doesn’t blow—and the sun doesn’t shine—energy is not being produced. We’d be at the mercy of elements we can’t control, even with environmentalist voodoo,” Noble concluded, hoping he had made his case.

  As the others had sat back and listened, Seymour became restless with all the dogma. The wannabe stand-up needed a mood changer. Now he had the perfect opening. He couldn’t resist. “By the way, anybody ever find out how much it cost the taxpayers to install solar panels in the White House? All that expense, so twenty-two energy-saving one-hundred-watt light bulbs could shine brightly for twenty hours a day.” Then, lacing his jest with sarcasm, he suggested, “That’s like putting stained-glass windows on the outhouse door. Does anyone ever recall roaming around the White House without lighting? There was a lot of fog, but no darkness.” Seymour was aware that Hank initiated the project and tried to egg him on.

  “So how many taxpayers does it take to screw in a light bulb?” Hank quipped, not taking the bait.

  While the others laughed, Seymour’s own light bulb lit up.

  “Brilliant, Hank. You gave me a great idea for the infomercial to articulate the energy policies!”

  Paolo was also aware of Hank’s role in the project and appreciated the humor, but he was eager to get back on point. “All kidding aside,” he redirected, “The U.S. has continued to lead the pack in reducing CO2 emissions, while at the same time emissions have increased worldwide. As the U.S. works to reduce emissions from coal plants by the required thirty percent, China and India continue to build new coal-fired power plants. At the same time, Europe returned to coal energy and gave up on solar and wind as its main power source, finding it too costly. Are we sharing the same world?”

  As Chase listened to Paolo’s point, his interest suddenly piqued. He jumped in. “I remember Germany’s situation in particular. They tried the same approach, shutting down their nuclear power reactors and dismantling coal-fired plants to encourage renewable energy. As a result, the Germans coined a new term, energy poverty. Their energy costs spiked over thirty percent in a five-year period as costs rose during the rapid transition.”

  “Rapid as in revolutionary?” Seymour goaded in the form of a question.

  “Yes, and as a consequence they found themselves once again firing up the coal plants. Then it soon fell to the United Kingdom as they began to roll back the green costs on their utility bills. The most notable reversal of policy was Australia. As one of the largest polluters of greenhouse gases, they ended up repealing their carbon tax.” Eyeing his tablet, Chase read, “Their prime minister said it was, ‘a useless destructive tax which damaged jobs, which hurt families’ cost of living, and which didn’t actually help the environment…’” Looking up at the group to catch their expression, he grinned, “And while I’m on a roll, the Canadian Prime Minister Harper said, ‘No matter what they say, no country is going to take actions that are going to deliberately destroy jobs and growth in their country.’”

  “Well said, Chase. That’s exactly why I referred to the climate initiatives as revolutionary. And those policies caused hundreds of thousands of people to lose their jobs.” Seymour stressed.

  Chase acknowledged his point and then quoted a term used by another luminary: “Jobs lost due to the anti-carbon regulations are considered ‘collateral damage.’”

  They all smarted at the statement
by the former head of the Climate Action Project, a well-funded partisan environmental group. They also knew Chase was stressing his point, by purposely making reference to the insensitive phrase that referred to hard-working Americans who lost their jobs caught in the political crosshairs.

  “Throughout this debate, we’ve once again proved that there’s science on both sides of the global warming issue,” Noble contended. “Debating whose science is correct will continue until hell freezes over or, I guess in this case, it would be the other way around. But the realities we face are the current policies in place that are singularly driven to push for renewable energy at the expense of economic growth. Without a consensus, it will be a hard sell to change any legislation for the sake of jobs.”

  “I agree, but we’re still dealing with a false premise,” Seymour insisted. “Let’s deal with the fact that there’s no conclusive evidence that climate change is as dire as the proponents say or that we can do anything about the outcome! I agree with the move toward renewable energy—I disagree with the herculean push. Humans have little influence on an established historic trend.”

  Chase took Seymour’s declaration as a resounding conclusion to the global-warming debate and reentered the conversation. “No one can negate that this hasn’t been a lively exercise, but once again, after a week of examination, we have arrived at no immediate measures for relieving the job crisis.”

  Paolo interrupted. “Let’s not throw in the towel so soon! I say we give it another crack, but focus on the tax implications and see if we can find any relief for businesses to inspire them to expand.”

  “Paolo has a point; what say you?” Chase asked, tossing the idea out to the group.

  The slow, reluctant nod of the heads made it unanimous.

  “I guess we have our homework cut out for us,” Seymour announced, “but first I need some sustenance,” he yawned.

  On that note, they agreed without hesitation. They collected their paraphernalia, dropped it off at their assigned workstations, and then retired to their suites to freshen up for dinner.

  30

  A TAXING DEBATE

  The embroiled group had spent several days dissecting the various taxes that had been imposed in the name of climate change. The one that captured the most focus was the proposed and unpopular carbon tax. The tax that would be levied on all coal, petroleum, and natural-gas producers. It appeared to be the sticky wicket. Emotions ran high on the issue and they once again operated at a fever pitch.

  Chase started the discussion with an assertion. “Baari failed to have his sweeping Climate Change bill pass. Ever since, the Congress has been sitting uncomfortably on the issue, never being able to come to a consensus. But it’s never been tossed in the dustbin either.”

  “In this instance, the Congress understands,” Noble stated. “Imposing such a tax would increase energy costs and place a greater burden on our less privileged citizens.”

  “I’ve heard the same reasoning from former colleagues,” Paolo agreed. “The economic consequence on the middle and lower classes is precisely the stumbling block that brought the Congress to an impasse.”

  “We have already discussed the negative effect it brought down, down under in Australia, until they repealed the carbon tax. However, Sweden and British Columbia are two shining examples where the carbon tax has enjoyed success.” Noble acknowledged.

  “You’re correct. Sweden returned the tax revenue to the government’s treasury,” Seymour said. “Although, it’s interesting to note, there’s no mention of how it’s being used to promote renewable energy, now that they have their mitts on the money.” Applying a touch of sarcasm, he added, “It may sound familiar to a number of U.S. government programs. Those with no accounting for how the funds are disposed or if they had even been transferred.”

  “British Columbia, on the other hand, created an exemplary revenue-neutral tax that returned the revenue back to its citizen by way of tax cuts,” Paolo cited.

  “Bingo! And in both cases, the tax decreased the greenhouse gases and fuel consumption. And there was no negative impact on their GDP,” Hank proclaimed, as though he had a personal hand in its success.

  Seymour shot up in his chair.

  It was apparent that the devil in Hank had pushed a hot button.

  The others sat back and watched the specter as Seymour spewed.

  “This entire discussion is based on the false assumption that humans can prevent global warming. Imposing a tax on the U.S. to reduce CO2 would be negligible in the rest of the world, where they are not restricted. To make matters worse, imposing a tax on energy companies would compound the negative effect, either in the loss of jobs, reduction of manufactured goods, or in the possibility of companies relocating overseas.”

  “What I find of greater concern,” Chase interjected, “is the question of how the revenue would be spent. We don’t need to bloat the government coffers further, only to have the revenue dissipate into the netherworld. Seymour, you even pointed out that there’s no evidence that Sweden is using the revenue in any way to foster renewable energy.”

  Hank, in a good-humored mood, stated, “All of you—are fighting the tide.” Then, reverting to form, he claimed, “A carbon tax could provide a positive outcome. There’s talk among economic luminaries, from all political factions, about mirroring something similar to British Columbia’s carbon tax. The tax would be revenue-neutral by offsetting existing taxes. It could show up in a reduction of corporate taxes or personal income taxes.”

  Seymour looked up to the ceiling and moved his head about as if he was sniffing the air.

  “What’s your problem now?” Hank asked, annoyed at the distraction.

  “I smell a commodity coming on,” Seymour cajoled. “We all remember the Chicago Climate Exchange, the brainchild of Richard Sandor, Al Gore, and George Soros. The brilliant scheme to trade carbon credits on the commodities exchange. It doesn’t look like a hard asset to me.”

  “I remember it didn’t turn out so well for some of the largest shareholders in the exchange. Waste Management, International Paper, and Ford Motor Company were among the embattled,” Chase relayed.

  “I remember it as well,” Paolo added. “The investors were banking on Baari to pass the cap-and-trade legislation. When he failed, the unholy trio, among other insiders, managed to sell the company to the Intercontinental Exchange in London for a hefty profit.”

  “Had they just held on a while longer,” Hank speculated, as though recalling fonder times. “In the end, Baari found a way to push capand-trade through. In retrospect, his use of a loophole and the EPA to accomplish his goal ended up evading the will of the people. But it readied him for the next step, the carbon tax.” Hank eyed Noble before making his parting shot: “Then, his administration abruptly disintegrated.”

  Noble ignored the inference.

  Seymour didn’t. He lashed out, “Why are we rehashing history? Bottom line—climate change has gone from a science to a political agenda. Clearly, it’s a tool to empower governments, using climate change as the justification for further taxation.”

  “You seem rather defensive,” Hank goaded. “Perhaps it has to do with your role when we worked together in the White House.”

  “Nice try, Hank.” Seymour was not swayed and continued to make his case. “Either way, the actions of our government will have little effect. Some years back, Derrick Morgan, from the Heritage Foundation, released a study that proved the carbon tax would hurt U.S. competitiveness. According to my notes, he argued that the carbon tax would:

  ‘(1) do next to nothing to lower global temperature, (2) harm American manufacturing competitiveness, (3) create a new revenue stream based on behavior modification, and (4) harm low-income Americans. Energy supplies can be delivered and new supplies created through the private sector rather than through mandates, regulations, taxes, and subsidies ordered by government.’”

  Seymour looked up from his tablet and persisted. “Many today still end
orse his theory. I know you’re all familiar with the old consensus of theory of truth. We banked on it during Baari’s campaigns. It’s when people tend to take statements to be true simply because there is a general consensus. Without scientific proof there’s a widespread belief the world is undergoing a human-induced major climate change. To date, we have no true consensus as to the effects of global warming—climate change—okay, Hank! But whatever the name, the issue of the planet heating up because of humans is not a proven fact.”

  Noble took the opportunity to weigh in with some specifics. “A poll conducted some years ago by Pew Research indicated a third of the respondents believed government action was not warranted. Less than thirty percent felt global warming was a priority, and forty percent believed measures to reduce greenhouse gases could be delayed until the economy improved. I believe that if a similar poll were conducted today, it would reflect similar sentiment. The consensus of theory of truth on this issue is embedded in the minds of people.”

  “It’s evident that we can’t even arrive at our own consensus,” Hank stated. “But it’s also clear that there’s no way to calculate the number of jobs that would be affected if the carbon tax were eventually imposed.”

  Hank seemed to have uttered his closing statement. And, with all arguments having been aired on both sides, the group concluded that the tax might end up becoming a necessary evil and possibly prove to be positive for the economy.

  In the end, Hank was correct.

  They also agreed that one possible measure to preserve jobs, if the carbon tax passed in Congress, would be to reduce corporate taxes, which were the highest in the industrial world. That point would be shelved for another discussion.