With all the excitement surrounding President-elect Barack Obama, everyone wants to know what will be the first great “change” the Obama administration can bring about. Some have wondered if a bill to help protect the environment and work to fight global warming will be the first move. The America’s Climate Security Act came before the U.S. Congress during a session last year. The bill was voted down, but most think after the changes in the Senate and House, Congress will try to push a similar bill again. Obama said during his campaign he would support such legislation. Commonly referred to as cap and trade bills, the 400-page legislation sets up caps on how much carbon dioxide a company can use. If the company went over their limit, they would have to buy permits to continue to emit. Companies that go under their limits would be able to trade extra emissions to other companies. There is no denying legislation this bold would help the environment. Scientists say it could reduce global temperatures by an average seven-tenths of one degree. But at what cost will we get these beneficial results? William Beach, director of the center for data analysis at the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, spoke at Nicholls State University College of Business last Thursday.  Beach talked about the possible affects of cap and trade legislation on Louisiana.  He said cap and trade legislation would “basically wipe out manufacturing in the U.S.” Jobs related to shipbuilding in Terrebonne and Lafourche area could particularly see losses. Beach, who frequently briefs members of Congress, has cautioned the law might have severe economic consequences. Paying for carbon permits would significantly increase the cost of energy, which would then increase the price of goods and manufacturing. According to the study done by the Heritage Foundation, cap and trade legislation could cost Louisiana between 6,577 and 9,090 jobs by 2025. The study also showed that the average household would pay $467 more for natural gas and electricity, meaning they would pay more than $8,000 extra for energy between 2012 and 2030. The country as a whole could lose as many as 1 million jobs before 2030. In the midst of the scientific concern for the problem, Beach said, the economic impact isn’t always well thought-out. The problem is some legislators see slower growth as an okay trade-off for preventing future environmental problems. This is unacceptable. Even if the country wasn’t in the economic state it’s in now, gambling economic growth for environmental protection is ridiculous. Don’t get me wrong — I’m all about conservation. I love the great outdoors and want it to be here for my children. But I think there’s a line between conservation and environmental protection and then cap and trade legislation. Cap and trade legislation will have too much of a negative effect on the U.S. economy. Democrats have complained for the last couple of years that the Bush administration is responsible for thousands of jobs being sent overseas. If the Dems have their way, cap and trade legislation will send hundreds of thousands of jobs overseas. No manufacturing jobs will be able to last in the United States. There are ways to help reduce carbon dioxide emissions without having such losses in the economy. I think we should move into it more slowly. There should also be more a push to build more nuclear plants. Nuclear power is very clean. There isn’t a lot of waste involved. Great Britain, which gets about 20 percent of its energy from nuclear, will only have 70,000 cubic feet of nuclear waste to worrying about by 2040. This waste could be held in a cube measuring 42 feet on every side. According to a Keystone Center study, failing to replace current nuclear reactors when they go offline will actually increase greenhouse gas emissions because the energy will now have to come from coal or natural gas. Nuclear also makes more sense economically. If the government starts taxing carbon emissions, nuclear power starts to look much better and will end up costing less than other forms of energy. I know what you’re about to say — “Nuclear power plants aren’t safe.” First, no one died because of the Three Mile Incident, nor was anyone severely injured. Second, according to a 2001 study by the Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland nuclear power has had the best safety record of all major energy sources, both in terms of total deaths and deaths per terawatt of energy produced each year. The results for the top four sources listed from highest amount of deaths were coal, hydropower, natural gas and finally nuclear power. So it’s clear we have a great way to cut back on green house gas emissions — build more nuclear plants. More nuclear plants would mean less coal and natural gas plants and therefore less emissions. I’ve found in life there are always right and wrong ways to do things. And cap and trade legislation is the wrong way to lower green house emissions.  —-Contact Matthew Gravens at [email protected]