The climate change bill that just passed the House of Representatives last week will be debated on in the Senate while the Health Care debate is going on. Despite all the hype about the Health Care debate and it’s divisiveness, it is nowhere near as contentous as a Cap and Trade bill would be. One of the primary opposition arguments against a Cap and Trade on carbon emmissions is that the economy is poor right now and Cap and Trade would only make it worse. This is based on the fact that Cap and Trade is founded on a regressive tax that taxes all households ($175/year based on the current plan). Although this is true, polling has consistently shown that a majority of families support paying this price in such legislation. Moreover, the tax helps pay for the bill and makes it a deficit-neutral bill. Like most progressive legislation, this bill sacrifices short term benefits to consumers for long term benefits. In the long term, the cap on poluting industries and non renewable sources of energy ultimately leads to lower renewable energy prices that are eventually cheap enough to be attractive to the average consumer. In addition, this ultimately means less reliance on foreign oil which would prevent dramatic oil crises like those of 1973 and 1979. At the end of the day, this is a contentious piece of legislation that would take away consumer buying power and slightly delay recovery but its long term impacts outweigh its negatives. That’s why while I expect the senate to take its time and wait for a little more substantial recovery, it will ultimately pass this bill in 2009.