Big differences seen compared to EIA estimate.
Documents (link to PDF) obtained from the U.S. Treasury under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute were released on Tuesday.
The U.S. Treasury Department admits that a “cap and trade” system for regulating greenhouse gas emissions could cost every household $1,761 a year. According to the CBS News story, “the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent”.
This comes in way over claims that the EIA says:
The Climate Bill Will Cost You Just 23¢ a Day, EIA Analysis Shows. This works out to $83.95 per year. Big difference.
CEI Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy Myron Ebell on the accumulating evidence on the costs of cap and trade:
“The bill’s proponents talk about protecting consumers while intermittently acknowledging that cap-and-trade can only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by dramatically raising the price of energy derived from coal, oil and natural gas.
President Obama said during the campaign last year that ‘under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.’ Dr. Peter Orszag, now head of the White House Office and Management and Budget, testified last year when he was head of the Congressional Budget Office that ‘price increases would be essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program.’”
Praying for failure of this concept.
Liars
do it for the children /sarc
In an inflation economy figures must be adjusted to it, and to the result it should be added the increase in heating costs of the current solar minimum.
Having worked in government – the higher estimate is probably closer to the truth. Government bookkeeping can almost give any answer the government wants by moving money/expenses sideways.
Ron de Haan (11:28:21) :
Liars
We, as “gammas”, can not address our “alpha” masters in such a terminology.:-)
Drink your “soma” and do not worry.
Keep in mind that while Joe Wilson was out of line and violated protocol, he was essentially correct. Verify everything.
Every day that the focus is on the cost of cap and trade the other titles of the bill giving government control of much of the economy go unnoticed. Even if the cost of cap and trade goes to zero there are many reasons to reject the bill.
Beware staring at the waving hand while the other hand grabs your freedom.
When does the revolution start? I need to stock up on “Caps”.
It would seem that they meant 23 cents per hour and not per day as a final cost.
If prices are going to be increased that much, who benefits. Obviously not the consumer. Government? Is there some sneaky way these dollars will find their way back to the treasury? Energy companies? Might that explain their recent conversion to believers?
Somebody stands to gain.
So the Treasury Dept. hid this knowledge until forced to release it under the Freedom of Information Act? I guess they expected it to be buried long enough to rush the bill though congress. Scum!
The Daily Mail was brave enough to report on the 9-12 patriots expressing their views.
Your Representative and Senators are eager to hear your enthusiasm for this new carbon “tax”. One letter is often considered the express the interests of 10,000 silent citizens! Furthermore, President Obama is committed to creating the most open and accessible administration in American history.”
Is anyone really surprised?
Usual obfuscation where the end results always justifies the means.
Insane. I hope that Canada does not fall for this scam. I will continue to vote against any federal and provincial party thinking about introducing cap and trade. My taxes are high enough already.
Cap and Trade is one of the cornerstones of the administration’s plan to “change” the country. This not very subtle tax on everything and everyone is the perfect vehicle for sucking vast revenue into the federal till for subsequent redistribution along whatever lines the Washington loons decide is “best” for us while maintaining, with a straight face, that taxes will not be raised for anyone making less than $250,000. Global warming abatement is simply the “excuse”.
It is vital to the health of the population of the world that carbon traders not go broke. We must make a new class of “green” billionaires so that we may create a class of guilt-free “good” rich to replace the “bad” rich.
My question is, to what extent will the general population of Ethiopia be participating in the carbon trading market?
It was rather hard to accept “electricity rates would skyrocket” costing only 23 or 42 or whatever cents per day. Looking at previous government estimates of costs – Medicare costs about 10x predictions after inflation – I expect the $1761 is on the light side. With all the new things we are promised that won’t cost much, and my doubtful status as a bailout recipient, I’m a bit concerned about paying for all of it.
At least someone in D.C. admits it might cost more.
The real problem with this scheme is – who decides what the “cap” should be? Where does the number come from? Is this number derived, ultimately, from the AOGCMs and opinions of people like Jim Hansen? If that is the case, it is the most egregious tax scam our country has ever witnessed…
Oh well, I’m sure the AGW lobby and its friends in government will use our tax money to keep themselves well funded with worthless climate science “projects” and redundant climate “products”.
Can it really be that rational beings are a Senate vote away from the proposition that higher taxes lower an entire plantet’s tempurature?
Call me crazy but that sounds like a Monty Python skit.
Dead Parrot anyone?
Seems like chicken-feed compared to trillions in mandated health insurance premiums going to the insurance companies, the trillion dollar cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars, and a 12 trillion dollar bail out of the banks.
The Climate Bill Will Cost You Just 23¢ a Day
No one believes the 23¢ a day bs.
Many “fixes” attempted via government fail because the initial “good idea” runs into political reality and human nature. If cap and tax is going to work it will have to cost enough to make a difference. Companies will have to pass the costs along to customers and the customers will have to notice that they are paying more – enough more that they will turn out the lights or drive less or whatever. And government will have to restrict substitution. Thus, an import made in another country can’t be allowed to serve the purpose of a new higher priced widget made in America. Tariffs will follow cap and tax. There is the saying “that you can’t do just one thing.” It fits.
As currently designed this idea is designed to raise revenue for a larger government intrusion into our lives. There isn’t a chance it will affect Earth’s climate.
Estimating the cost of emissions reductions is no mean feat.
In general, the constant is the household budget constraint, not the cost of the energy. Therefore, if electricity prices rise, consumption tends to fall and the monthly bill tends to remain broadly constant. Best I can tell from visual inspection, power consumption falls in line with increased prices; thus, a 20% decrease in consumption results from a 20% increase in price (but no, I haven’t run any formal numbers).
By this rule, a 20% consumption reduction would cost about $250 / household / year. However, household income can be forecast to rise about 2% per year over the period, so the cost of the reduction might be twice that for a static exercise, that is, a 20% reduction would cost $500 / household, a 10% reduction $250. Maybe. And keep in mind that much of the adjustment will come from lower consumption, of which a portion will represent reduced welfare–something that is hard to measure.
For oil, we saw last year that a doubling of the oil price resulted in a 10% drop in oil consumption, that is, this can be achieved with a price increase of about $1.50/gallon, or about $1,500 per year for a household with two vehicles.
Allow about another $1,000 for heating oil / gas.
So, by 2020, a 10% reduction in CO2 emissions might therefore cost a typical household about $3,000, if we include the indirect costs of goods and services which depend on oil and power for manufacture or transportation. Based on current incomes, an estimate of $1700 might not be too bad, but it will be about twice that by 2020.
So what do we get for this? This would reduce US CO2 emissions by about 500 mt/year. The increase in China’s CO2 emissions in the next ten months will be about 500 mt / year.
So, if such a program were fully implemented today, a $1,700 annual cost to the typical household would reduce global CO2 emissions for about 10 months, after which emissions would be higher than they are today.
AGW should mean “Apportion Global Wealth.” I’ve read many UN and environmental documents that call for the rich nations to pay hundreds of billions of dollars per year to developing countries and LDCs so that these countries can build infrastructure and live a more modern lifestyle.
The equivalent to the cost of a postage stamp per day. Those were Obama’s exact words. Either he was lying, or there’s a big hike in postage costs in the pipeline!