Fueling Poverty, Not Progress: Why Extending Cap and Trade to 2045 Is a Bad Deal

Originally published by the California Globe

As President Donald Trump champions a “big, beautiful” economic revival, California’s cap-and-trade program stands as a stark reminder of legacy policies that burden everyday Americans for no clear gain. This system, which forces oil companies to buy emission allowances to cover the carbon emissions from the fuel they sell, drives gasoline prices to punishing heights. This hits (you guessed it) working-class Californians the hardest. But just as America stands at the precipice of economic revival after four hard years, some advocates say it’s time to extend cap-and-trade policies. I couldn’t disagree more – it’s time to reject this flawed approach that “enriches” the state at the expense of its people.

California’s gas prices are among the nation’s highest, averaging $4.61 per gallon compared to the national average of $3.16, more than a dollar per gallon less. The cap-and-trade program adds an estimated 23 to 74 cents per gallon. This disproportionately harms low- and middle-income families who can’t afford electric vehicles or have lengthy commutes. As the state pushes to extend this program through 2045, Californians would face the prospect of even steeper prices as California restricts the supply of allowances. This isn’t progress; it’s a policy that picks the pockets of the poor to fund Sacramento’s pet projects.

Proponents of cap-and-trade argue it’s essential to limit greenhouse gas emissions, claiming it will protect the environment by helping California hit its target goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. They also claim the program generates valuable revenue for the state, having collected over $30 billion to date.

But this assumes emissions are an intractable problem requiring heavy-handed market interventions, ignoring how human ingenuity and innovation have historically solved environmental challenges without such punitive measures.

To read the full article, click here.