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.’”
Carbon cap-&-trade scheme is the greatest Potemkin village construction project that mankind has ever undertaken. All peasants, line up for your shovels!
NickB (15:15:42) :
OK, but you forgot to mention that the Moon really IS made of cheese
All we need is a second moon made of crackers.
Here’s an excerpt from a speech Michael Crichton gave in 2005. I believe that the logic behind it is relevant to the discussion of the costs of addressing AGW. Full speech and powerpoint is available here: http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html
“Last, I want you to think about what it means to say that we are going to act now to address something 100 years from now. People say this with confidence; we hear that the people of the future will condemn us if we don’t act. But is that true?
We’re at the start of the 21st century, looking ahead. We’re just like someone in 1900, thinking about the year 2000. Could someone in 1900 have helped us?
Here is Teddy Roosevelt, a major environmental figure from 1900. These are some of the words that he does not know the meaning of:
airport
antibiotic
antibody
antenna
computer
continental drift
tectonic plates
zipper
nylon
radio
television
robot
video
virus
gene
proton
neutron
atomic structure
quark
atomic bomb
nuclear energy
ecosystem
jumpsuits
fingerprints
step aerobics
12-step
jet stream
shell shock
shock wave
radio wave
microwave
tidal wave
tsunami
IUD
DVD
MP3
MRI
HIV
SUV
VHS
VAT
whiplash
wind tunnel
carpal tunnel
fiber optics
direct dialing
dish antennas
gorilla
corneal transplant
liver transplant
heart transplant
liposuction
transduction
maser
taser
laser
acrylic
penicillin
Internet
interferon
nylon
rayon
leisure suit
leotard
lap dancing
laparoscopy
arthroscopy
gene therapy
bipolar
moonwalk
spot welding
heat-seeking
Prozac
sunscreen
urban legends
rollover minutes
Given all those changes, is there anything Teddy could have done in 1900 to help us? And aren’t we in his position right now, with regard to 2100?
Think how incredibly the world has changed in 100 years. It will change vastly more in the next century. A hundred years ago there were no airplanes and almost no cars. Do you really believe that 100 years from now we will still be burning fossil fuels and driving around in cars and airplanes?
The idea of spending trillions on the future is only sensible if you totally lack any historical sense, and any imagination about the future.
– – – – –
Finally, and most important—we can’t predict the future, but we can know the present. In the time we have been talking, 2,000 people have died in the third world. A child is orphaned by AIDS every 7 seconds. Fifty people die of waterborne disease every minute. This does not have to happen. We allow it.
What is wrong with us that we ignore this human misery and focus on events a hundred years from now? What must we do to awaken this phenomenally rich, spoiled and self-centered society to the issues of the wider world? The global crisis is not 100 years from now—it is right now. We should be addressing it. But we are not. Instead, we cling to the reactionary and antihuman doctrines of outdated environmentalism and turn our backs to the cries of the dying and the starving and the diseased of our shared world.”
[Nogw (14:44:55) :
It’s all about the redistribution of poverty because redistribution of wealth never succeeded. 🙂
Everybody will be green/yellow of hunger/cold. Got it take pictures of that event!]
I believe the wealth will redistribute from fossil fuels to clean energy. Its come at a time when its needed the most
Jeff Green,
You are hitting the nail on the head. We need to pass cap and trade without delay, and make an investment in our new green future.
You and I are on the same wavelength.
Sorry such a short post, but I have to go now. I’m late for my thorazine and electroshock therapy.
” government is the only answer.”
Your mindlessness is frightening.
Jeff Green,
You show amazing persistence , however, all of you claims rest on two large assumptions.
First, you assume that CO2 sensitivity is as large as Hansen and others claim. The problem with this assumption is there is no way to measure what the CO2 sensitivity is today because there is no way to conduct a controlled experiment that eliminates all other possible explanations. This means there is a significant non-zero probability that there is no problem that needs solving – a probability that is supported by the recent trends in temperature data.
Second, you assume that it is technically possible to use non-emitting energy sources while enjoying a standard of living comparable to what we have today. I have seen no credible evidence that this is the case which means it does not make a difference what the science says because we don’t have any economic alternatives.
Eventually politicians will realize that adaptation is the only option and the only question is how much damage will be done to the economy before politicians realize that mandating CO2 reductions is a futile exercise.
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.]
Solar thermal is viable today and has room to save money on construction through future R&D.
Plug-In cars are becoming viable. With manufacturing experience many of the costs will come down with time and experience.
There is enough of either solar or wind by themselves to completely sustain all our energy needs.
Smart Grid is being developed now. Again that is just a matter of time. It will be good to go from the dumb grid to the smart grid.
Smart Grid will help take care the intermittency of both solar and wind.
Utility scale energy storage is viable today. This is one of the keys to 80% clean energy by 2050.
[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.]
Soooooo I’m just this cartoon and not a real person? Economists have added up the dollars and cents of acting now or acting later.
Acting now is about .1 to .5% of GDP
Acting later is about 20% of GDP
Jeff Green: If the middle class will get a tax break out of this, what incentive will that group have for cutting their energy consumption, and therefore emissions? There is also reportedly a provision in Waxman-Markey that allows the administration to change targets more or less at will. If that’s true (and I do not have the time to read 1,000 pages or more and still get work done, plus spend time with my family, which equals 1 wife and 2 children BTW) then the sky is the limit. Of course, even if they say there will be a tax break, that’s only promises which politicians seem to love to break.
“Government is the only answer…” Really! Try out Cuba or Venezuela for a few years and and report back then on how wonderful it is there. I’d like the US to remain a true democracy.
EPA’s own analysis presented to Congress illustrated no realistic effect. I also agree that the Treasury and EPA analyses will not consider what we can expect to be impacts on the production of all other goods and services. The Treasury analysis provides some lip service to this in their FOIA’d document under “Competitiveness.” How they plan to provide for protection of “energy intensives” sectors is, of course, missing.
If the real intend behind the concept of “spreading the wealth” is to lift the third world out of poverty, we would provide developing countries with a grid based on modern coal plants and offer them free trade agreements.
I believe that we only need about 8% of the current development budgets paid by the West to the UN and the Non Governmental Organizations, currently promoting medieval agriculture and health care without operating rooms in the third world, to make this happen.
Providing the Third World with a grid really would make a significant impact on their lives and the local environment and it would, without any doubt, lift them out of poverty.
They would have light to study, electricity to drive pumps for clean water and create an acceptable standard of living.
Our current schemes are aimed to deny the third world access to cheap energy for years to come, reduce their populations and steel their resources.
That’s why those countries are ruled by corrupt leaders and corrupt administrations.
Replacing our carbon fueled power generation by solar, wind and bio fuels is impossible and therefore unrealistic. Besides that, it is a terrible waste of capital because it took us decades to build the magnificent infrastructure.
The same goes for the option of battery propelled vehicles.
It’s nice on the Golf Yard but it’s not a realistic replacement of a gasoline or diesel propelled car. At least for now.
New technologies should compete with old technologies and the consumer should decide what to buy. Not a Governmental bunch of hooligans dictating us what to do.
Besides that, those countries that installed 20% of their energy needs with wind energy did not reduce their use of carbon fuels (Spain and Denmark and Germany)
This is because the wind technology simply does not deliver.
Germany today is building 23 new coal plants in order to remain compatible for the future. This is necessary because Germany depends largely on exports
This is a carbon driven world and we thank our prosperity to cheap carbon energy and that won’t change for a long time to come.
For those who believe we are out of coal, out of oil and out of gas soon, they are wrong.
Current inventories will last for the next 200 years and the application of new energy saving technologies could extend the period of time to 400 years, which leaves us with sufficient time to develop real alternatives.
For all those defending the Waxman Bill and the schemes behind it, I would like to say that they are defending a truly devious scheme that will seriously harm the USA,
our people and our interests without solving any problem.
The entire concept of green clean renewable energy is a pipe dream and we currently do not have an alternative for coal, oil and gas.
Carbon fuels are not only essential for the production of electricity and to propel our distribution system, it’s also the basis for numerous products we need in our daily lives, from plastics to fibers and an endless list of chemicals we need to fertilize our crops and produce medicine, just to mention some of the applications.
Windmills and solar panels simply don’t deliver the energy we need to develop our societies to make the next jump an bring our civilization to a higher level.
Sending our society back to the level of the Medieval Ages is no solution and it is not necessary.
CO2 is not a climate driver and therefore there is no need to reduce emissions.
I am glad to live in the modern times and I cherish my freedom.
I would like to keep it that way.
There is noting wrong with our climate and only the fact that the greens promote the opposite opinion should make us very careful.
I regard the Green Doctrine as big threat to all we stand for.
Those who defend it should keep in mind that the consequences of the Green Schemes will be harmful them too.
If you don’t believe me, start reading:
http://green-agenda.com
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
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]
Provided no stupid business people sink us again this doesn’t take place until 2012. We will be recovering resonably well by then.
Retired BChe (13:44:01) :
[The stated objective of Cap & Trade is to reduce CO2 emissions by replacing power stations fueled by coal, oil, or natural gas with “renewable energy” (nominally windmills or solar panels of one kind or another.) To emphasize this, during the past year Obama has said he would bankrupt coal companies, and J. Hansen told Congress the CEO’s of coal and oil companies should by indicted for crimes against humanity. Pretty strong language when half our electricity is from coal-fired power plants! So why aren’t answers to the following obvious questions being asked by the public:
Where will the needed power come from at night or when the wind stops, since there are no batteries yet available of the tremendous size needed to fill in during the outage hours?
What happens when an array of solar cells in the southwest dessert is struck by lightning in the summer or covered by snow in the winter?
How far is it practical to send AC power over transmission lines before “IR losses” become prohibitive? (Is it practical to send it from the southwest to the northeast?) What about the environmental impact to prairie dogs, jackrabbits, coyotes, and other denizens of the dessert when many square miles of land are covered with solar panels, DC to AC converters, and high voltage equipment; and to birds and bats when thousands of windmills are placed on mountains? And of course, the bottom line question: even if you are an AGW type, what good would it do to burden the US with such costs when India and China have already indicated they won’t? I smell money and extreme corruption behind all of this. Just as town meetings and tea parties have come on the scene in response to unanswered questions on health care, I expect similar revulsion of the public when the details are known about the impact of the Waxman-Markey bill.]
The plans are there and it will work. Denmark is at 20% now. Spain and Portugal are both very aggressive in bringing more wind and solar on now.
Smart grid will bring on an efficiency of about 16% helping to require less power generation. Iwth investment in energy efficiency in regular society another 20% can be saved. With plug in hybrids reach into the millions the smart grid can tap into their battery banks for utility storage.
Jeff Green (16:01:13) says:
“When you get a better understanding of the science you will get it.”
Ah. So that is how Green explains the details of Cap & Trade? No wonder the alarmist crowd can’t get anything right, whether it’s sea levels, drowning polar bears, computer models, global sea ice extent, the ozone hole, glaciers, ocean acidification, runaway global warming, hurricanes, etc., etc.
Every alarmist prediction has been wrong. Their CO2=AGW conjecture fails. Despite that list of uninterrupted failures, Green is now preposterously claiming that the government will come in well under its C&T budget!
We’ll see how that one works out.
And as soon as it is passed, they will suddenly say “It’s going to cost far more than we had predicted”. Please report to the burlap & sackcloth centers, where all your possessions will be confiscated. After that, you will receive a number, your ration card, and the work camp you will be assigned to.
astateofdenmark (12:31:23) : If prices are going to be increased that much, who benefits.
Companies that build infrastructure and produce electric generation equipment. GE stock was up 6 1/4% today. Think about it… If you shut down the coal plants you must build??? GE makes gas turbines, windmills, nuclear stuff, etc. etc. etc.
Government? Is there some sneaky way these dollars will find their way back to the treasury?
Well, start with the “campaign contributions” of corporations. Then proceed to the taxes paid, the “projects” approved in particular districts, Oh, and don’t forget the PERCENTAGE taxes on your utility bills…
Energy companies? Might that explain their recent conversion to believers?
The typical conversion happens right after they are told they will have to produce less with less expenditure of money on costs but must charge more for the product to discourage consumption … Can you say “Margin Expansion?”…
Dave Wendt (13:29:58) : Since, from what I could tell, the $1761 per family only accounts for increased taxes and direct energy costs, the real cost will undoubtedly be very much higher.
Oh Yeah. We have several $Trillions of dollars invested in existing infrastructure (such as coal power plants, coal mines, etc. along with things like Diesel trains, trucks, gas stations, etc.). ALL of it will need to be replaced with “something else” to have a “green” solution. $2k is barely the down payment on the increase in the taxes. Just wait till the capital build out begins… You are all, 100% ready to buy a brand new Government Motors Electric Car at about $30,000 to $40,000 each are you not? (That is about 1/2 the price of the present electric on the market – the Tesla.)
As we experienced last summer and also back in the 70s when energy costs are raised dramatically there is an inflationary ripple effect throughout the economy and the price of virtually everything goes up as well. If history is any kind of indicator, you can probably at least double the figure they’re admitting to, and there is a good chance even that number will be lower than the real value.
“That Number” is so way low that it is a joke. Look at California. We had a minor FUBAR with electric pricing and market structure and it darned near destroyed the state. Rolling blackouts. Industry abandoning the place. This gimmick will make Enron look like Boy Scouts. Picture the Grey Out of California, but add to it the demolition of the generation capacity and buying inferior replacements that cost more and doing it on the credit card funded by the Chinese. (And yes, the replacements will be economically inferior since they are not presently economically competitive, by definition.)
Retired BChe (13:44:01) : The stated objective of Cap & Trade is to reduce CO2 emissions by replacing power stations fueled by coal, oil, or natural gas with “renewable energy” (nominally windmills or solar panels of one kind or another.)
BINGO! And it that capital stock rollover that is being ignored. Putting it on the credit card (via Chinese funded treasury bonds) does not make it go away and does not make it free.
Nearly 100% of our transportation runs on oil products. To reduce that consumption means to replace that stock of capital goods. The entire ‘fleet’ of cars, trucks, train engines (and in many cases, track with electrification), ships, etc. One sticky little problem is airplanes. They don’t work so well on heavy electric motors…
Where will the needed power come from at night or when the wind stops, since there are no batteries yet available of the tremendous size needed to fill in during the outage hours?
Most likely, natural gas peaking plant using GE gas turbines. At least for the first decade or so.
How far is it practical to send AC power over transmission lines before “IR losses” become prohibitive? (Is it practical to send it from the southwest to the northeast?)
Quite far, actually, but at a price. See the pacific interchange that runs from Washington state to Los Angeles, for example. Very high volts DC. There are also superconducting power transmission lines now. Who wins? The companies that build those. To the tune of several hundreds of billions over time.
what good would it do to burden the US with such costs when India and China have already indicated they won’t?
Well, my India and Chinese holdings will go up 😉 And my Brazil too… If you can’t beat ’em, at least exploit ’em 8-}
I smell money
Me too! The risk is that the bill does not get passed and the trade collapses, but until that is the case, look to the OOTUS trade (Out Of The US) as the place to be. And “multinational” infrastructure companies.
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.
Spot on! Though I think you are low on the costs. Remember that you also must replace all the vehicle “fleet” and all the fueling infrastructure (gas stations, oil refineries, fuel barges, tank farms…)
That piece of the puzzle gets us to $1761 per household within ~3 years, with no end in sight.
Um, I think we need to START at $2k or so per household as the starting figure, then add your “per year” on top of that… plus the hidden costs and the costs of economic collapse as things move to India, China, and Brazil.
The above assumes that the requisite technology is actually commercially available at approximately the projected costs. That is a huge assumption.
There are lots of available uneconomic technologies just waiting for coal to be made twice as expensive. But that’s the problem, you must have about double the electric bill just to replace the coal fuel then you also need to add amortization of all the new facilities and decommissioning of all the old facilities (you didn’t expect a regulated industry to just eat the cost of that decommissioning did you? The “expected lifetime” is built into the rate structure. If that 50 year coal plant gets shut down in 30 years instead, then the other 20 years of ‘amortization’ will get ‘charged off’ onto your power bill…)
The true costs of Cap and Tirade are so horrific that it is absolutely doomed. The only real question is how much damage will be done to the structure of the U.S. economy before we chuck it and try to recover. If the coal plant is mothballed, it can be restarted. If it is demolished, so are we…
FWIW, I hold stock positions in China, Chinese land, a synthetic fuels company building facilities in China, Indian mutual funds and Indian vehicle makers. Oh, and a bunch in Brazilian energy companies and broad Brazil funds. I am positioning to make money off this absurdity, but would rather be doing something else instead… Maybe I can’t leave the country due to family and home, but my money can (and in large part, already has.)
I’m presently looking at international infrastructure companies, but it looks like I was a bit late for the GE pop. AMSC American Superconductor has been ripping upwards, but I didn’t have any of it, either. Worth watching, though.
Ron de Haan (16:58:24) wrote;
The entire concept of green clean renewable energy is a pipe dream and we currently do not have an alternative for coal, oil and gas.
I have read about plans proposed to replace coal with natural gas. This would cut the co2 emissions in half from those plants. It would be cheaper, quicker and we would meet our 2020 emission goals. Natural gas would be a transition fuel until we get our renewable infrastructure in place.
Someone could possibly pay an additional $1761 tax in a year – assuming that they still have a job…
In Germany, VW has developed a home generator that runs on natural gas and operates at an incredible efficiency of 92%, fueled by natural gas.
The generator provides heating and electricity.
Families can buy the Generator for 5000 Euro.
The generator is operated via a wireless connection and it kicks in if the grid is in need for additional power.
Like the solar panel schemes people are paid a fixed price per Kw for energy delivered to the grid.
The Government expects the system to be used to stabilize the net from fluctuations caused by wind energy.
VW is expected to build 100.000 generators short term.
What’s interesting about this concept is the fact that no power plants are needed.
This could be a very interesting option even for remote locations without or with an unreliable grid because the engine could also run on LPG, gasoline or replaced by a diesel with similar efficiency rates.
http://www.gizmag.com/vw-enters-the-home-power-market/12842/
Jeff Green
Does one of those stupid business people employ you? Cap and Tax will cripple business. The major offset will be to export jobs from U.S. business to off shore business. This will have a direct effect on your job as well as every other employer and every employee. If you are so lucky to have inherited wealth it will still have an effect on you. This effort by the government reminds me of Don Quixote but instead of windmills they are tilting with the sun! At least the good Don was not trying to control peoples lives or take their monies. Hopefully this effort will fail before it is enacted.
Jeff Green (15:45:42) :
Part of this money is for a middle class tax break.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=204447,00.html
They also plan to let the Bush tax cuts lapse at the end of the year, which will mean permanent tax increases larger than the temporary cut provided in the Stimulapalooza
Jeff Green (15:51:35) :
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.
Attempting to force the economy toward extremely inefficient, exorbitantly expensive, and highly ineffective alternative energy sources will accomplish nothing for our energy situation other than dramatically inflating the cost.
Jeff Green (15:57:08) :
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
Citing Mr. Hansen as a scientific source is not a really effective type of argumentation.
Jeff Green (16:01:13) :
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.
Before arguing against some thing magically stopping you may want to suggest some evidence that it ever actually started. The behavior of CO2 in an isolated laboratory situation may be well understood, but it’s action in the complex environment of the climate is mostly the subject of lively speculation.
Jeff Green (16:09:53) :
As much as you don’t want to hear it, government is the only answer.
Yeah but, what was the question?
Smokey (17:11:18) :
Jeff Green (16:01:13) says:
[“When you get a better understanding of the science you will get it.”
Ah. So that is how Green explains the details of Cap & Trade? No wonder the alarmist crowd can’t get anything right, whether it’s sea levels, drowning polar bears, computer models, global sea ice extent, the ozone hole, glaciers, ocean acidification, runaway global warming, hurricanes, etc., etc.
Every alarmist prediction has been wrong. Their CO2=AGW conjecture fails. Despite that list of uninterrupted failures, Green is now preposterously claiming that the government will come in under its C&T budget!
We’ll see how that one works out]
There are people on this thread that understand what I am saying. Your world view gets in the way of even understanding the data. Right now the artic is experiencing warmer average temperatures more so than the rest of the world.
The process of polar amplification is in full force now.
James Hansen predicted that with a simpler computer model than they have today back in 1988. He is the winner of being right.
Jeff Green (17:10:13) could not sound any more clueless than in that post. And that’s saying something!
The U.S. produces well under 2% of its energy with non-traditional sources like wind power. Those alternate sources are hugely expensive. They would not exist if it were not for their heavy taxpayer subsidies; they are mostly sold as tax shelters.
And the always-hypocritical greens would have a conniption fit if hawks and eagles were being sliced and diced every day by normal power plants: click.
But since the eagles, bats and hawks are killed every day to serve the Leftist agenda of super expensive watermelon energy, it’s A-OK with the economically illiterate green simpletons to kill as many raptors as necessary to sell their failed schemes. After all, they’re just expendable birds.
Regarding Arctic sea ice: another epic FAIL by the greenies. Why? Because they’re deliberately ignoring the Southern Hemisphere: click. See, global sea ice is above average and increasing. But some folks insist on remaining clueless.
@John M (15:55:49) :
“Jeff Green (15:45:42) :
Part of this money is for a middle class tax break.
Gosh. A middle class tax break. Where have we heard that promise before?”
Yup. I’m middle class and if I get one more tax break, I’ll be broke.
I’m almost, almost with evanmjones except, like a postage stamp, it’ll be 23 cents, then 25 cents, then 32 cents…
I say no! Give them no quarter!
Jeff Green (14:55:13) : Conservative attacks on the high costs of a clean energy bill are off-base. Analyses of Waxman-Markey consistently show modest costs.
I don’t know what analysis you are reading, or what part you are highlighting of any analysis.
It has nothing to do with conservative politics. That is only the spin being put on it.
It is about findings of studies.
These are the results of an analysis of Waxman–Markey by the eia/ DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) that was requested by Waxman and Markey themselves.
From the “Executive Summary” :
ACESA (i.e., Waxman-Markey bill) increases the cost of using energy, which reduces real economic output, reduces purchasing power, and lowers aggregate demand for goods and services. … Total discounted GDP losses over the 2012 to 2030 time period are $566 billion… in the ACESA Basic Case…. from $432 billion… to $1,897 billion… across the main ACESA cases…
The hit to the GDP is estimated up to $1.9 trillion. This will equate to job loses and keeping the economy in a recession and likely pushing it into a depression.
Cap N Trade is a nightmare. Let’s not go in to that nightmare.
Link to the eia/ DOE report :
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/hr2454/index.html?featureclicked=2&
Link to page where quote is from, in the “Executive Summary” :
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/hr2454/execsummary.html