Bureaucracy Eclipses Democracy
When newly elected President Biden re-joined the Paris Accord, it was after politicians on the left and right had derided it. Almost everyone thought it was dead – even its supporters. One of the major components coming out of that December 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference was allowing companies to buy and sell pollution rights.
That carbon provision was not new as it had been proposed a number of times by President Obama and members of Congress. The idea is to assign specific carbon emission ‘rights’ to specific companies who then in turn could buy and sell those rights.
The flip side is the idea of a carbon tax, whereby emitters would pay a tax on each ton of greenhouse emissions they emit.
The argument for both propositions is to incentivize fewer emissions, which on the surface sounds worthwhile.
The problem with both ideas is who sets the price to be paid – the cost of – greenhouse emissions? To make either one viable, government(s) must determine the external cost for each ton of greenhouse gas emission. To say that is difficult is an understatement. Different countries/governments would set greenhouse gas prices and costs at different rates. And that would happen because scientists and economists in each country must first agree on which assumptions about climate change to use when setting prices/costs/rights – and, at the moment, calculations by scientists and economists are not even close even when there’s general agreement the earth is getting warmer.
The obvious questions are how much and how fast is the earth warming? Is the impact of global warming all negative? Whose specific numbers and predictions would be used and why? Who does everyone trust to set the numbers and the cost?
Even in a democracy it takes a majority to set a course. Or does it?
Radical climate change proponents do not propose any form of democracy to get where they want to go. And they may get what they want without it. In the US for example, Congress just gives the power for those decisions and subsequent regulations to some bureaucracy. There’s plenty of precedent without oversight by the people’s representatives.
Which brings me to one of the biggest, most unreported, bureaucratic moves taking place as this is being written.
Formed as a response to the stock market crash of 1929, in 1934 Congress set up the SEC (Security and Exchange Commission), an independent federal government regulatory agency responsible for protecting investors, maintaining fair and orderly functioning of the securities markets, and facilitating capital formation.
Recently the SEC has started the process establishing a rule that would reorient the entire U.S. financial system into one that prioritizes climate change over financial soundness.
This new regulation, which would turn the SEC into an environmental agency, is focused on climate change rather than preventing fraud.
I won’t try to detail all the specifics of this new, 506-page regulation – with 1,068 footnotes – requiring companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions.
Here’s a summary:
Scope 1. requires companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions. While difficult, it is possible to accomplish and to report direct emissions.
Scopes 2. requires companies to report the direct and indirect emissions from every manufacturer and service provider they use. It means companies would be required to collect emissions data from vendors, including how much rubbish they dispose, the hotel stays of their employees, and the mileage of their vehicles.
Scope 3. requires companies to report the emissions by consumers who benefit from (buy) their products.
The sheer amount of data necessary to calculate all emissions data included would require legions of bean counters — if it’s even possible to collect or estimate.
The SEC defends the rule as necessary to address investors’ demands for transparency about climate change risks.
The truth is – it’s designed to deny financing to the American oil and natural gas industry. Banks holding accounts of any oil/gas operation or utility would be required to report the emissions of any and all of their customers.
The Biden administration is using the bureaucracies to drive forward an agenda otherwise not possible through the democratic process. The WH is assuming America will transition away from oil and natural gas if it makes oil and gas expensive enough – and wants to burden all companies with ‘busy’ work if they do business with any greenhouse gas emitter.
But Congress has never passed a law requiring such a transition because climate change advocates have failed to convince a majority of people that the sacrifices necessary to do so are wise or even realistic. In the continued absence of an alternative that does everything oil and natural gas do, eliminating their use would leave the public without the reliable means to heat their homes, drive their cars, switch on the lights, and put food on the table.
So, here we are, expected to obey highly questionable edicts and orders – allow and comply with rules and regulations by various bureaucracies controlled by our president. The SEC example shows just how it can be done. In addition, the President can cancel and deny leases and shut down pipelines – because he/they have the power and are exercising it – unchecked.
Enough!
We need a Congress to accept responsibility for representing us.
Hello, November. It may be our last chance.
***********************
Have a great and prosperous week.
Hug somebody.
References:
https://www.thebalance.com/carbon-tax-definition-how-it-works-4158043#citation-31
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sec.asp
