Another Wow...The U.N. Admits Cap-N-TradeTax Sucks

And we thought hell froze over when Greenpeace came out against cap-n-tax!  Get a load of this:

A paper released today by the United Nations Environment Program and the World Trade Organization acknowledged that cap and trade legislation would be expected to have significantly harmful economic consequences, likely including a serious loss of international competitiveness. In response, governments considering such a policy would likely want to consider a border tax adjustment (BTA) system to mitigate the loss of competitiveness. The report goes on to say that such a BTA system would be permissible under the world trading system.

While it's shocking in and of itself that a group like the UN Environmental Program is admitting that cap and trade is economically harmful, the report raises a good point concerning the BTA system that should be addressed by Congress.

...

The release of this report is a stunning development for two very important reasons:

1) It acknowledges de facto that cap and trade has harmful economic consequences. Again, this is co-written with the UN Environment Program, an adamant supporter of emission reduction targets, a firm believer in the IPCC report and that manmade emissions are significantly contributing to global warming and a firm believer that all nations, especially the developed ones should be "combating global warming." If cap and trade is a jobs program, as President Obama and certain policymakers purport it to be, why are the harmful consequences on net so extensive that a country would need to offset their anti-competitive effects?

2) It raises a major new consideration that has previously escaped domestic debate. The House of Representatives is currently debating a massive, 1,200 page cap and trade bill on the floor. Whether one supports or opposes the bill, all participants in the debate have an interest in addressing this important new dimension of the debate. Before debating an incomplete bill, the House should consider whether a BTA regime is needed, and if so, task the appropriate Committees with its design. Legislators should seriously address this new development before debate concludes.

Should, yes.  But they won't - since when has Congress ever let common sense prevail in the face of massive new regulation and unprecedented spending?  Not once, at least in the past 6-8 months.

There's my two cents.