Springfield, MO

Log in Subscribe

Opinion: Back-door cap and trade nearing rightful repeal

Posted online

A decade ago, cap and trade was all the rage among environmental activists. This law would have given government the ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

Cap and trade would have placed an artificial limit — or cap — on companies’ emissions and allowed them to buy — or trade — excess allowances from other companies that hadn’t met their caps. The price of these carbon indulgences would be determined by what other companies were willing to pay for them.

High-carbon industries like coal power would have been forced to either buy credits or switch to lower carbon generation methods. As former President Barack Obama said, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Environmental activists advertised cap and trade as a government-mandated, market-based approach, which seems like the ultimate oxymoron. The only reason a market would exist would have been to avoid paying massive, government-enforced penalties for emitting a gas that previously was perfectly legal and free to release.

Carbon regulation rests on the underlying presumption that imposing legal quotas for carbon is the government’s job. Since the government clearly did not have this power, Obama and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-California, tried to pass a law to make it so.

In 2009, the Missouri Farm Bureau and many other groups banded together to oppose cap and trade. We believed, and still believe, the best way to limit emissions is through the free market: if limiting carbon emissions is important enough to the American people, it will be in companies’ best interests to do so. This view prevailed as cap and trade stalled in the U.S. Senate.

Environmental activists felt that we did not have enough time to wait for public opinion to support them – the government had to act now by whatever means necessary, and the people would just have to deal with it. So after President Obama failed to secure enough votes to pass a law, he tasked the Environmental Protection Agency with inventing a creative interpretation of the Clean Air Act to cap carbon emissions. Obama called this proposed regulation the Clean Power Plan. Opponents called it back-door cap and trade.

Fortunately, legal challenges stopped the CPP from going into effect long enough to allow President Donald Trump to take office and review the rules. Last year, he announced his intention to repeal the CPP and end Obama’s “war on coal.” The EPA is now gathering public comments on this proposed repeal.

Last week, MOFB testified to support repealing the CPP. While we have major disagreements with the underlying policy, the unprecedented way it was created may have been even more troubling. In a representative republic, the legislature gets to decide what new laws pass, and the executive branch is just supposed to ensure those laws are put into practice.

After this 10-year battle, we are happy to see that the will of the people still matters. If our elected representatives refuse to enact a law, government bureaucrats should not look for ways to do what they want anyway. And when government bureaucrats underestimate the knowledge and will of the citizens they represent, they should not be surprised when the citizens rise up and remind them who’s really in charge.

Eric Bohl is director of public affairs for the Missouri Farm Bureau. He can be reached at


No comments on this story |
Please log in to add your comment
Editors' Pick

Why is SGF so enticing to Kum & Go?

First entering the Springfield market 15 years ago, Kum & Go LC’s local construction activity is hard to miss these days.

Most Read Poll
What’s your convenience store of choice?

View results