More specifically, Jerome Ringo is testifying in front of the powerful House Committee on Ways and Means today

Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) is holding a hearing on policy options to prevent climate change.  The committee will be hearing from two panels.  The first panel is on design options of cap and trade.  The second (and the one in which Ringo will testify) will talk about the opportunities that can be created through addressing climate change and the cost of inactivity.  The goal of the testimony is to show that the cap and trade program can be a valuable resource that shouldn’t be given away to polluters.

The country can do a lot of good with the money that is raised through a carbon emissions permit auction.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates the proceeds of a carbon market to be between $50 billion to $300 billion per year. The Apollo Alliance’s new policy agenda, The New Apollo Program, estimates that an ambitious $500 billion in federal spending over 10 years would create over 5 million jobs. This includes a broad range of activities such as building efficiency, renewable energy investments, smart growth, advanced grid technology, Research & Development initiatives and a “cap and invest” program.  The economic potential, we believe, will be directly proportionate at a factor of almost 5 to the level of public investment.

One way to gather the funds we need for that investment is for the U.S. to enact a “cap and invest” policy (Apollo’s preferred nomenclature) that auctions off permits, in the same way they are auctioned in legislation sponsored by Representatives Markey (D-MA) and Doggett (D-TX.) (Rep. Markey spoke at Apollo’s D.N.C. reception as pictured.)

What follows are excerpts of Ringo’s written testimony:

On the major goals of a “cap and invest” policy

First, it has to set clear limits on carbon emissions, so that we can dramatically lower our national carbon footprint.  This will send a powerful market stimulus and begin to shift our entire energy economy toward low-carbon technologies.  Second, it needs to raise significant levels of public funding to reinvest in the new energy future, while ensuring these funds are not siphoned off for wasteful pork barrel projects.

On the objectives of a “cap and invest” policy

First, it should continuously bring new technologies to the mass market. Green collar jobs will develop amidst strong demand. Second, it should ensure that these technologies are manufactured domestically. Third, it should invest in the domestic workforce so that we have the skills needed in manufacturing, design, installation, maintenance and science.  The money should be invested in such projects such as a 21st century power grid, a world-class transit system, fixing America’s transportation infrastructure, rebuilding and re-tooling American manufacturers and Research & Development.  The investments should be made with an eye towards aiding workers and industries in transition and helping communities that have been disproportionately affected by the old energy economy to lift them out of poverty.

On the benefits of a “cap and invest” policy

An auction of permits can be a win, win, win – it can help stabilize the climate, provide energy security and stimulate the economy while leveling the playing field for those that have been disproportionately left out of the process.

On the potential pitfalls of a “cap and invest” policy

If emissions trading permits are given to companies instead of auctioning them off, then we make rich companies richer.  Exxon Mobil made $40.6 billion in 2007, which was three times the profit of Microsoft and four times the profit of Wal-mart.  In the meantime people lost jobs.  This is the wrong way and a lost opportunity, not only to foster the market for clean energy and revolutionize our economy (and lose the potential described [in The New Apollo Program,]) but also to assist workers and families caught in the transition and to lift those that have been disproportionately affected by a petroleum-based energy economy. Also, the European Union implemented a “cap and trade” program that gave away permits.  Not only have emissions not been reduced, but the E.U. didn’t raise funds to reinvest in R&D, infrastructure or its people.

Other legislation that might be discussed in the hearing include carbon tax legislation proposed by Representative Stark (D-CA) and Larson (D-CT).  Apollo prefers a cap on emissions because it sends a strong signal to the market that there is a limit on emissions that need to be incorporated into business decisions.  Taxes don’t do that and they can be passed on to consumers.

We hope the Committee hears Ringo’s message that not only do we need a regulatory strategy, but we need an investment strategy if we are going to build a new energy future with good, green-collar jobs for working Americans.

–Heidi Pickman