Equal weight? Wash. Post provides Heritage cap-and-trade cost estimate with EPA's, CBO's
SUMMARY: The Washington Post answered a question about the cost of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill by providing estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, as well as a much higher estimate from the Heritage Foundation. The Post did not explain why it gave equal weight to the Heritage estimate.
In The Washington Post's "Q and A on the Climate Bill," which appeared in the July 6 edition of the paper, the Post answered the question "What will all this change cost, and who will pay?" by providing estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) -- but also included a much higher estimate from the "conservative think tank" the Heritage Foundation. The Post did not explain why the Heritage estimate warranted mention with the EPA and the nonpartisan CBO. Further, the Heritage estimate cited by the Post appears to come from an analysis of an older version of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill and not the version currently being debated in the Senate.
In response to the question "What will all this change cost, and who will pay?" the Post noted that the EPA and the CBO both estimated that the bill would cost less than "50 cents per household per day," and then added:
According to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, the cost would be much steeper: $11.78 per day in the coming decades. According to House Republicans, the costs would cripple the U.S. economy and drive American jobs to countries that do not have climate regulations.
However, the Heritage Foundation's estimate of $11.78 (or $4,300 per year) appears to come not from an analysis of the most recent version of the Waxman-Markey bill, but from an earlier Heritage assertion about the cost of cap-and-trade. Moreover, Heritage's own more recent estimate of cap-and-trade put the cost at $2,979 per year, which is 31 percent lower than the $4,300 per year estimate the Post used.
A May 15 blog post on Heritage's website stated that "when all the tax impacts have been added up, the average per-family-of-four costs rise by $4,300 per year." But in his June 22 testimony to the Senate Republican Conference, Heritage Foundation senior policy analyst Ben Lieberman stated: "If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey, it works out to an average of $2,979 annually from 2012-2035 for a household of four. By 2035 alone, the total cost is over $4,600." An annual cost of $2,979 would make Heritage's estimate $8.16 "per day in the coming decades" instead of $11.78 -- a 31 percent difference.
A July 1 blog post also used the "nearly $3,000 per year" estimate:
Time's article refers to groups whose cost estimates for the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade energy tax exceed $175 per family per year, or roughly what government number crunchers argue it would be. Heritage is one of those groups, but our estimate of nearly $3,000 per year per family of four is a much more truthful answer to the cost question than is $175.
From the Washington Post "Q and A on the Climate Bill":
What will all this change cost, and who will pay?
Less than 50 cents per household per day, according to estimates by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Congressional Budget Office. And that does not take into account benefits from avoiding hard-to-calculate costs associated with accelerating climate change.
According to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, the cost would be much steeper: $11.78 per day in the coming decades. According to House Republicans, the costs would cripple the U.S. economy and drive American jobs to countries that do not have climate regulations.
Reason #2: The numbers show conflict & drama ... too good for the press to pass-up or to fact-check.
2. I'll give you that. Plus, since the Dems currently control the executive and legislative branches, it's hard to see the CBO or EPA's estimates going against their agenda.
Here it is. The Cap and Trade will raise the cost of oil According to the Heritage Foundation this legislation could cause gas prices to jump 74% by 2035. That means, at today’s prices, gasoline would be well over $4 a gallon.
Guess who can least afford to pay higher gasoline prices?
What effect do you think that will that have on the economy and jobs?
This entire notion of "killing jobs" is completely misleading.
The idea is to move the oil & gas sector jobs into green energy jobs by building up the green energy sector.
Conservative talking point tanks like HF do not bake in any benefits into their estimates because they are not true estimates. They are providing Republican talking points.
I get the idea of creating green energy jobs but it isn't as simple as shutting off the oil supply and viola! green jobs replace it. That is fantasy. Green energy as a viable alternative does not currently exist. Punishing working class people most of all by driving up their cost of energy in order to, maybe, provide and alternative, (which in reality will have a negligible effect on world wide CO2), is craziness of the highest leftist order.
Climate scientist Chip Knappenberger, of New Hope Environmental Services, calculates that the bill would only reduce Earth's temperature by 0.1 to 0.2 degree Celsius by 2100.
Cap and Trade will destroy the economy while China, Russia and India and other countries ignore the environmental impact and continue on their merry way. Estimates today show China put out 6,200 million tons of CO2 last year making it the largest producer by far of CO2 in the world.
Already, between now and 2030, 97 percent of the projected emissions increase comes from non-highly industrialized countries--three quarters from China and India (and those in the Middle East).
If current trends continue, by 2035 there will be about 250 million more cars and SUVs in China and India. During the past 30 years, the number of vehicles has increased nine-fold in Southeast Asia, 11-fold in India and 16-fold in China.
http://www.ecoearth.info/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=130550&keybold=
Cap and Trade will simply move more manufacturing to China.
Once again, the con's take the short-sighted approach.
Oh and...
The only one's ignoring the environmental impact are the Democrats.
This is really rich. Thanks for the laugh, I needed it.
If reducing CO2 is such a global imperative, why aren't India and China leading the way for the U.S.?
I find it amusing that on the one hand, the left doesn't want the U.S. to exert any influence over other countries when it comes to disposing despots, but does want the U.S. to toss it's own economy under the bus when there is no reciprocal agreement with other major CO2 producers.
What I mean by the Dems ignoring the environmental impact is that Cap and Trade, even if you accept the flawed premise of AGW, will have at best a negligible effect on AGW.
Using mainstream models and assumptions, Mr. Knappenberger finds that in the year 2050 with a 83% emissions reduction (the aspirational goal of Waxman-Markey, the beginning steps of which are under vigorous debate), the temperature reduction is nine hundredths of one degree Fahrenheit, or two years of avoided warming.
See http://masterresource.org/?p=2355 for more information regarding the climate impact of Waxman-Markey.
We (all) must reduce CO2 emissions becuase if we don't, the costs down the road will be many times greater interms of both dollars and lives. You say that timely action will cripple the economy, yet in the same breath claim that's it's biggest problem is that it doesn't do enough. Again - amazing. Now, I'm assuming that you don't want us to do EVEN MORE so I guess you want us to do nothing until someone else solves the problem for us. Well: That's conservative problem solving for you. (News flash: Waxman-Markey will not be the only pice of environmental legislation passed between now and 2050. But hey: Why start moving in the right direction now? Why not just hope the problem goes away on it's own?)
As for crippling the economy? It's nonsesne. This has the potential to create whole new industries - not just in envirnmental cleanup / pollution prevention, but also in power generation. And once we've perfected these technologies (that you say will cripple us) we can SELL THEM to India and China, who might (1) have more money than us by then and (2) be more willing to clean up the environment, consdiering what's it likely to look like by then.
But you'd rather do nothing, and then BUY the technology from them, proabably after it's far to late to do anything about it at all. (Adding costs to already greater costs.)All because you'd rather us be the global leader in polution instead of in renawable energy, and green-manufacturing. Amazing.
I'm an engineer, by eductaion and profession. I create, design and fix things for a living. And going back to my school days, I have always been amazed at the lack of imagination and ingenuity displayed by conservatives. You people always want to do NOTHING. And that's why it's inevitable that time will pass you by.
I am simply tossing your argument back on you regarding your position that the the U.S. show "leadership" by launching on this cap and trade fiasco. Does the U.S. follow China's lead?
I haven't said that Waxman-Markey doesn't do enough. I simply pointed out that it's effects will be negligible even if you accept the idea that CO2 is the cause of AGW.
I have never said I want us to do nothing. There is lots that can be done without crippling the economy.
And it will cripple the economy. The Brookings Institution estimates the bill would cost 1.8 percent of GDP in 2035 and 2.5 percent by 2050. That's reducing incomes by hundreds of billions of dollars a year!
The Heritage Foundation says the bill would cause estimated job losses averaging about 1.15 million from 2012-2030, and the cumulative projected loss in gross domestic product would be almost $10 trillion by 2035.
The national debt from this bill alone, disregarding the multiple bailouts, stimulus packages and health care "reform," would increase by 2035 for a family of four by 26 percent, or $115,000.
Your disparaging comment about conservatives is laughable. For an engineer you've made unfounded accusations, ignored the economic studies, put your faith in disputed science, and bought hook line and sinker the government takeover of the energy industry without proof that the so called green technology will actually be developed. But you're willing to toss other people's jobs and incomes out the window while handing a blank check and unmatched government control over yours and everyone else's lives in order to satisfy your unproven, yet imaginative, assumptions.
Does the U.S. follow China's lead? God I hope not, but you seem to want us to.
I haven't said that Waxman-Markey doesn't do enough. I simply pointed out that it's effects will be negligible even if you accept the idea that CO2 is the cause of AGW. How does the second part of that statement not imply the first?
And it will cripple the economy. The Brookings Institution estimates the bill would cost 1.8 percent of GDP in 2035 and 2.5 percent by 2050. That's reducing incomes by hundreds of billions of dollars a year! What will the cost of doing nothing be? How much more damage will we do if we don't at least START moving in the right direction. We lost 8 years on this. We could have had this almost licked by now.
The Heritage Foundation... I don't trust the heritage foundation. So don;t bother quoting them. And see my previous point.
The national debt from this bill alone, disregarding the multiple bailouts, stimulus packages and health care "reform," would increase by 2035 for a family of four by 26 percent, or $115,000. I'm confused - what does the national debt have to do with a family of four? Also - cap and trade involves companies dealing with each other. One company exceed the emissions target and sells the excess to another. That doesn't involve the nat'l debt. Don't bring in non-related issues. We have ample opportunity to discuss those elsewhere. Stay on topic.
Your disparaging comment about conservatives is laughable. Thank you, I'm glad you got a good laugh.
you've made unfounded accusations I'm reporting my impressions, based on observations, conversations and things I've heard you (guys) say. Nothing more. It's an interpretation, not an accusation.
ignored the economic studies I haven't ignored them. I have considered them, but I find that they are incomplete and/or make questionable assumtpions.
put your faith in disputed science ALL science is "disputed." That's how science works. But your lot's varous hypothesies RE GW have all been soundly disproven, and I'm going on what the best understanding is. You can never do any better than that. (That's how science works.) The ones who are truly "put[ting] ... faith in disputed science" are those that worte the "economic studies" you say I'm "ignoring."
and bought hook line and sinker the government takeover of the energy industry without proof that the so called green technology will actually be developed There is no gov't takeover. That's nonsense. Gov't regulations are not a takeover. Cap and Trade keeps it between the very comapnies you say are being "taken over" and let's them work it out. As for the development of green technology? How will that not happen? It's needed, it's possible, and it's finally getting the ivestment that is should have gotten eight yeays ago. Are you saying it's impossible? I already know that to be incorrect. The current state of technology is enough to prove that.
But you're willing to toss other people's jobs and incomes out the window while handing a blank check and unmatched government control over yours and everyone else's lives in order to satisfy your unproven, yet imaginative, assumptions. I am willing to creat engineering jobs, while insisting that manager do some actual WORK to justify their bloated salaries. Yes. "Unmatched Gov't Control." ... Um... What is it supposed to MATCH? Dude - They're limiting greehouse gas emissions. Seems to me that YOU want to let corporations impact everyone's lives without any oversigtht at all. Newsflash: The Gov't IS controlled by the people. We can always vote them out. Good luck doing that to corporations, especially after you've gutted all gov't oversight.
Tell you what - go watch the documentary "The Corporation." It's liberal, but I'm sure you can cope. They do an interesting critique of "Cap and Trade", from a LIBERAL perspective. The concerns are valid (though I don't necessarily buy into them) but they eviscerate this idea that Cap and Trade constitutes some kind of gov't take over.
Bottom line: If corprations EVER cleans up theri own messes, instead of alwasy externalizing the cost thereof, gov't wouldn't NEED to get involved. But they don't, so they do.
Enjoying the back and forth between you and AA. But I've got a question...how do you square your statements about the economic prosperity of following Kyoto with the comments from galileonardo below?
He lays out a pretty strong case about the folly of buying into the Kyoto provisions.
Thanks for taking so much time to reply.
My point about China is that we don't follow their lead and they don't follow ours. So unilaterally accepting the disputed premise of AGW by the U.S. does not mean China will be moved by our action to suddenly cripple their economy as we will be doing to ours.
The point I was making about the WM bill is that the scientific projections say it will only affect GW by about two tenths of a degree over the next hundred years. The impact of WM is negligible to the environment even if you accept that CO2 is the culprit in GW. I didn't say I agreed with it.
I don't know what you mean by "losing eight years" and "having this licked by now."
You find some of the economic studies as incomplete yet you accept the CBO and IPCC reports after they have been shown to be flawed? Even the Brookings Institution says the WM bill will cost triillions. You find them flawed but you don't say how.
The selling of allowances is simply a way for Gore and cronies to get rich and a hidden tax that will be paid for by you and me.
I find it funny that you say all the GW hypothoses my side has put forward have been disproven. That is kool aid talk if I ever heard it. Even if there is GW, show me where AGW has been proven! It is disputed and new studies disproving it come out every day. You need to stay up with the research rather than relying on Al Gore's movie.
You seem to have an ax to grind with corporations. I never said I wanted corporations to be without oversight. Bottom line: You are veering off topic.
That's the headline from the Brookings Institute...
-- The administration’s budget, even if we do exactly what the administration wants, even if Congress imposes PAYGO and sticks to it for ten years, which is unheard of, even if the economic recovery works the way the administration says its going to, which is a very optimistic forecast, even if all those things happen we are on a unstable path for the budget, and we are on a unstable path within the next ten years...
the issue is certainly healthcare, but the issue is about a lot more than just health care. Our fiscal books are fundamentally out of balance...
polls last week have shown that the public is all of sudden worried about the budget deficit, that doesn’t mean that the public understands that you got to raise taxes or cut spending. -- Brookings Institute
Infrastructure that which is there is failing, big tax breaks to corporations improved nothing, less regulation and oversight which allowed this current mess while enriching a select few and allowed the destruction of the enviroment (which we can argue about but we will all need at a point) and/ or perhaps through the mass exportation of jobs (because of and with the help of tax breaks and overly corporately friendly regulation).
Is it time to realign our priorities? Absolutely. This may mean we have to quit inserting ourselves into every situtation and allow the world community (gasp) to take the lead on some issue -- imagine it diplomacy or world govenment depending on your view. A peer among leading nations vs. a leading nation among peers, so we can repair some of the damage we have inflict on ourselves through constant warfare (actual and social) over the last 50 years.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." -- Ike. It is time to pay those people, our people, all people back and fix this nation.
And yes there will be situations and wars that require our action and we should take it. But we may have to weigh our involvement in a more considered and level headed manner.
To say as some here have that this bill will create jobs (a sentiment in alignment with the administration) is wholly removed from reality. If that were the case, why the many provisions in Waxman-Markey that deal with jobs being lost?
Rather than using projections and models and shadow puppets, let's turn to the real-world numbers. By now you have likely heard of the study out of Spain that said for every green job created, 2.2 jobs were lost. The study goes on to state that of the green jobs created, only 1 out of 10 were permanent. Crunch the numbers and for every permanent green job created, 22 were lost!
Spain invested heavily in green jobs in comparison to the rest of the EU and took Kyoto to heart. They have been rewarded with an unemployment rate approaching 20 percent, over double the EU average. In light of the real-world numbers and tough economic times, other European countries are now pulling back from their commitments.
Even the pledge signed at the G8 yesterday failed to commit to short-term milestones and instead went with their 2050 two-degree pledge (long after all of these signatories have retired). In other words, these politicians did not want to put their necks out in fear of the backlash that would have spawned from commitment to short-term numbers.
So, for the sake of your own credibility, please do not refer to Waxman-Markey as a jobs bill. It totally undercuts your arguments.
And exactly what Wesley/Tommy/JamesB/RightON is great at.
Time for another attempt at a PSA...or just blather about nothing...good night Irene, unless you have the goods on "ultimate costs to our nation"...
They note:
My beef all along has been there are real issues that need to be addressed NOW! I've said this before, but as an environmentalist myself, it angers me to no end that resources that should be going to the real issues like habitat destruction and species eradication are instead being diverted to worthless causes like this for the benefit of the likes of hyper-hypocrite Al Gore and his "global government" (he said that, not me).
While you are busy fiddling with NRDC numbers (no bias there), many millions of people worldwide die annually because they lack electricity, access to clean water, and basic sanitation. Over 40% of the world's population uses biomass to cook! The air pollution from that alone kills 1.5 million annually, and they're mostly children under the age of five!
Rather than lining up like sheep to fork over your money that you are so eager to part with to a huge inefficient bureaucracy, maybe you can donate that money to some of the causes that would help ease that suffering. Send a Somalian family a solar cooker so they can avoid the deadly indoor pollution they are exposed to daily while cooking their meals. Send some Congolese a shank from one of Al's prized methane-belching black angus so they don't slaughter the last mountain gorillas for bush meat.
In other words, do something now that would have real-world impact rather than follow some pie-in-the-sky worthless and wasteful cause. If you are so concerned and have such compassion, I implore you to abandon your support for this scam and start supporting those measures that would really have an immediate positive effect not only on humanity, but also for the environment and its inhabitants.
T Boone pull plug on Wind Farm Plan