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.’”
Jeff Green (14:48:42) Based on a middle-of-the road estimate, potential benefits add up to about $1.5 trillion over the next 40 year
Al Gore has already benefited to the tune of $100 million. Truly, Al Gore came to do good, and he has done quite well. 😉
“If prices are going to be increased that much, who benefits. Obviously not the consumer. Government? ”
If you create a market where you can basically sell air, there will be some people speculating on it’s price. Most of them will be working for the banks. Of course we cannot blame them for using the opportunity, in my opinion it might be a great short-term investment occasion. In the long term though it (the whole green bubble) might create a bigger crisis than the one we just have witnessed and again people will blame capitalism. Encouraging or forcing people to use ineffective technologies might be a far worse idea than giving credits to people who cannot pay them back.
Jeff Green (14:55:13); (14:48:42),
Quoting EPA estimates is ridiculous. EPA employees from top to bottom will personally benefit financially from passage of C&T. Therefore their opinions can not be trusted.
Let’s listen to someone who doesn’t have a vested interest requiring them to lie about the costs:
Obviously, what is needed is to make marriage mandatory at age 21. Fewer households needing to pay.
Jeff Green wrote (14:55:13):
“The NYU study finds that finds that the benefits outweigh the costs by 9:1 .
Based on a middle-of-the road estimate, potential benefits add up to about $1.5 trillion over the next 40 years.”
OK, but you forgot to mention that the Moon really IS made of cheese.
Jeff Green, [snip] I will not even respond. It is a waste of time talking to you. I have seen your posts on other threads, and cannot stomach discussing anything with someone of your deluded viewpoint. Everyone has experienced the imbecilic nature of government, be they Dems or Repubs. What we are told and what it ends up being are so distant, it is hard for a normal person to fathom. Take the worst case scenario and double or triple it, and you may come close to what it is actually going to cost us. Cap and Trade on its own may be $1761 per year, but the cost transfered to the consumer by EVERY BUSINESS OUT THERE will result in the destruction of every family middle class and below. So much for doing it for the children. That should stymie population growth and go along way to reducing it dramatically. But that is the goal of people like Jeff Green, isn’t it Jeff? Benefits outweigh the costs 9:1 . [snip].
Harold Blue Tooth (14:55:30) :
This $1761 doesn’t include the cost of loss of jobs …
You beat me to it. As an economist, I have no doubt this number is too low. Way, too, low.
Jeff Green (14:55:13) :
http://climateprogres.org/2009/09/16/cbs%e2%80%99s-declan-mccullagh-promotes-another-false-cei-attack-on-clean-energy-reform/#more-11422
Conservative attacks on the high costs of a clean energy bill are off-base. Analyses of Waxman-Markey consistently show modest costs.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that on average, consumers will face the cost of about the same as a postage stamp per day. Then it has no hope of doing what it is supposed to do. So it should fail for that reason.
TANSTAAFL!
It is nothing short of surreal listening to hysterical pleadings of AGW cultists over how they must save planet Earth an illusory warming boogeyman for the sake of future generations, yet they have absolutely no problem condemning those future generations to toil under mountains of debt and massive government programs which they never would have had a chance to have their political voice heard on.
How can one group of people be so selfish yet so self-hating at the exact same time? THAT is a far greater mystery than the climate.
Harold Blue Tooth (14:22:30) :
‘price increases would be essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program’
“This would be crazy in a time of recession.”
Harold,
It is crazy at any time.
And so called GHGs will not decrease one iota. Most likely will increase.
davidgmills (13:08:39) :
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.
It starts as chickenfeed and it ends as the biggest balloon in the history of mankind.
Simply say No to the madness.
Kath, Canada has already fallen for this scheme or been pushed into it. I really can’t figure if politicians who know nothing of science believe this, believe the voters do or if they just can’t resist a good tax. The Liberals will put in a cabon tax and the Cons are looking at a cap and trade. Either way, I am out of here. This country is too cold to live in without heat.
This is the first year I have seen the hummingbirds leave on Sept 11th, normally the end of Sept and the geese leave on Sept 15th, normally Oct. Do they know something we do not?
In the words of a yoga classmate of mine “They keep talking about global warming but it keeps getting colder”
Ed Reid (14:18:40) :
Waxman-Markey sets a cap at 2005 emissions levels and posits a reduction of ~2% per year from that cap through 2050.
The elephant in the room is not the direct taxes or fees, but rather the investment which would be required to actually reduce US carbon emissions by ~2% per year. I have estimated that investment at ~$700 billiion per year through the period. Assuming that the investors who provide the capital would expect a return of ~10% on that investment, the ROI alone would be ~$70 billion in year one and would grow by ~$70 billion each year, adjusted for depreciation of the relatively long lived assets. That suggests that energy costs, direct and indirect, would increase by ~$600 per household per year over the period. That piece of the puzzle gets us to $1761 per household within ~3 years, with no end in sight.
The above assumes that the requisite technology is actually commercially available at approximately the projected costs. That is a huge assumption”.
Ed,
It’s nothing more but a big scam and it will destroy our economy, our middle class and send us back to the times where we used whale oil for lightning.
The third world will face mass famine and starvation.
That’s the scheme.
Jeff Green (14:48:42) :
I have read through the pdf report FOIA. There is no smoking gun in there. It only mentions about a 200 billion cost
Back when the nuns were trying to teach me arithmetic 200 billion divided by 300 million came out to about 667, which depending on what you use for average household size would seem to make even the $1761 figure an underestimate. On top of that we have the entire history of proposed government programs in which the benefits have always been overestimated and mostly illusory, while the cost estimates have nearly always been low by at least an order of magnitude and when the costs have eventuated they have always been very real.
Smokey (15:09:48) :
Jeff Green (14:55:13); (14:48:42),
[Quoting EPA estimates is ridiculous. EPA employees from top to bottom will personally benefit financially from passage of C&T. Therefore their opinions can not be trusted.
Let’s listen to someone who doesn’t have a vested interest requiring them to lie about the costs:
Whatever the costs, we will get almost nothing in exchange. According to climatologist Chip Knappenberger, Waxman-Markey would moderate temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century. This doesn’t sound like a great deal for the next generation—millions of lost jobs, trillions of lost income, 50-90 percent higher energy prices, stunning increases in the national debt, and all for undetectable changes in world temperature. [source]]
The old can’t trust government routine. Business as usual will give us an increase of about 5 to 6 degrees average temp by 2100. At that temp its a disaster in the waiing. And the climatologist is correct on that matter. And that would be a big time win believe it or not. There is a long hauyl getting out of this.
One thing not being discussed on this forum is the benefits of the American Energy and Security act. The savings to the economy are 9 times the investment by 2050
Dave Wendt (15:40:11) :
[Jeff Green (14:48:42) :
I have read through the pdf report FOIA. There is no smoking gun in there. It only mentions about a 200 billion cost
Back when the nuns were trying to teach me arithmetic 200 billion divided by 300 million came out to about 667, which depending on what you use for average household size would seem to make even the $1761 figure an underestimate.]
Part of this money is for a middle class tax break.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=20447,00.html
Maurice Garoutte (11:59:40) : “Beware staring at the waving hand while the other hand grabs your freedom.”
Meanwhile, the Media keep us responsibly and accurately informed: Hey, everybody, did you hear Michael Jackson died? [waving hands]
Obama lied.
[Clarity2009 (15:23:12) :
It is nothing short of surreal listening to hysterical pleadings of AGW cultists over how they must save planet Earth an illusory warming boogeyman for the sake of future generations, yet they have absolutely no problem condemning those future generations to toil under mountains of debt and massive government programs which they never would have had a chance to have their political voice heard on.
How can one group of people be so selfish yet so self-hating at the exact same time? THAT is a far greater mystery than the climate]
Ahhh yes there is conspracy in the air. Not. Its investing in our country to save money down the road. We will be able to have a more stable energy economy. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil brings the several hundred billion dollars per year back home.
Jeff Green actually believes that if C&T is not passed, the planet will heat up by “5 to 6 degrees average temperature by 2100.” That’s in only nine decades. And he makes that preposterous claim as global temperatures are in decline.
In the novel 1984, Orwell’s protagonist, Winston Smith, wonders if the State might declare that “two plus two equals five” as a fact; he ponders whether, if everybody believes it, does that make it true?
Apparently Green doesn’t even need “everybody” to believe his nonsense; he’s enough of a believer by himself.
Orwell also said: “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.” Jeff is strong in that regard.
Jeff Green (15:45:42) :
Gosh. A middle class tax break. Where have we heard that promise before?
[David Ball (15:25:12) :
And so called GHGs will not decrease one iota. Most likely will increase]
James Hansen has done a model of the recovery time it would take for co2 to return to safer levels. There will not be imediate results. We will depend on the earth’s ability to reabsorb the co2 from the atmosphere.
How can one group of people be so selfish yet so self-hating at the exact same time? THAT is a far greater mystery than the climate
Easy: They received “funding” at the same time.
[Smokey (15:54:10) :
Jeff Green actually believes that if C&T is not passed, the planet will heat up by “5 to 6 degrees average temperature by 2100.” That’s in only nine decades. And he makes that preposterous claim as global temperatures are in decline.]
When you get a better understanding of the science you will get it. Co2 has not magically stopped its work because you say so. Its just physics.
[David Ball (15:20:40) :
Jeff Green, [snip] I will not even respond. It is a waste of time talking to you. I have seen your posts on other threads, and cannot stomach discussing anything with someone of your deluded viewpoint. Everyone has experienced the imbecilic nature of government, be they Dems or Repubs. What we are told and what it ends up being are so distant, it is hard for a normal person to fathom. Take the worst case scenario and double or triple it, and you may come close to what it is actually going to cost us. Cap and Trade on its own may be $1761 per year, but the cost transfered to the consumer by EVERY BUSINESS OUT THERE will result in the destruction of every family middle class and below. So much for doing it for the children. That should stymie population growth and go along way to reducing it dramatically. But that is the goal of people like Jeff Green, isn’t it Jeff? Benefits outweigh the costs 9:1 . [snip].]
As much as you don’t want to hear it, government is the only answer.
You did a really great rant. Have a nice day.
Too bad we can’t make the following deal:
We pay the 23 cents per day. And that’s it. Not one cent more. Ever. After all, that’s all he says we’ll need.
Problem solved.