Counterargument

While I am arguing that H.R. 2454 or the “American Clean Energy Act 2009”, will cause the United States to outsource, the counterargument to this is simply that it won’t. The opening statement of the bill in fact claims that it is aimed to “create clean energy jobs” and not take any jobs away. According to the New York Times, President Obama himself said that climate tax policies will create new green jobs "that can't be outsourced." The Energy Secretary was also recorded as saying that “tariffs and other trade barriers could be used as a ‘weapon’ to force countries like China and India into cutting their own CO2 emissions.” By both creating jobs that cannot be outsourced, and setting tariffs and trade barriers, outsourcing will be almost out of the question.

Fox News confirms that the bill “includes a provision to impose tariffs -- starting in 2020 -- on imports from countries that don't have a system for limiting global warming pollution.” So, in 10 years from now, all countries that do not support their own similar cap and trade law will be subject to a tax on all goods coming to the US of A. Seems like they’ve got a handle on this, right?

To top it off, the third section of the bill, entitled “International Participation” addresses the issue of the other powerhouse countries who should participate, namely China and India. When they adapt to a policy similar to our cap and trade bill, it will essentially nullify the possibility of outsourcing to those countries and entice other countries to follow suit. While the amendment to not pass our own cap and trade bill until China and India passed theirs was rejected, this section of the bill mandates that the Administrator generates a report regarding the status of similar laws each in each country, each year for Congress, so they are aware of these two countries’ stance.

Okay, the government is aware of the outsourcing threat that looms over the cap and trade bill, but they aren’t providing solutions sufficient for it. Reason 1: creating clean energy jobs won’t make up for the void the loss of the other jobs will create. Reason 2: The same Energy Secretary was later quoted as saying, “If other countries don't impose a cost on carbon, then we will be at a disadvantage." Whoops. He let that one slip. Reason 3: It can be summed up as one journalist explains, “The quandary is straight out of Econ 101: As long as some countries restrict emissions and some don't, many firms will simply move their emissions rather than eliminate them, seriously compromising CO2 reduction targets.” Yes, a tax would do well to keep a hold on outsourcing, but it would also cause more problems, such as other countries to be hesitant, even unwilling to do business with the United States because of this, and this would only be put into effect in 10 years, which is more than enough to break out economy in the already weakened state it is in. So, are we really eliminating the emissions, or just moving them to another location? Hmmm.