Climate 411

“[The American Clean Energy and Security Act] will come down hardest on the poor.”

— Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), 6/26/09

Actually, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says low-income Americans will benefit the MOST from this bill. The CBO calculations show that low-income Americans will actually see a net cash gain from this bill, as the value of emission allowances is rebated back to consumers.

In contrast, it’s the cost of doing nothing that would fall most heavily on the poor: from greater health-care costs because of expanding disease vectors to the destruction of homes from catastrophic weather events , it’s the poor who will disproportionately suffer.

Instead of disingenuously trying to hide behind the least fortunate among us, Mr. Cantor should step up and support this legislation — legislation that would create job opportunities across the economic spectrum. Most importantly, jobs that would provide pathways out of poverty for Americans who need them most.

“This bill is a blueprint for unilateral economic disarmament of the U.S.”

— Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA), 6/26/09

The American Clean Energy Clean Energy and Security Act will boost our economy by creating manufacturing jobs and investing in clean energy.

www.LessCarbonMoreJobs.org is an interactive website that analyzes the manufacturing jobs that are being created, and the many more that will be created under the ACES Act.

The ACES Act will also protect our families’ wallets and electricity bills.

“This will bring us back to hunting and gathering.”

— Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), 6/26/09

Really? We’ll go back to hunters and gatherers? Yikes!

Since the survivalist skills we’ll need have fallen into disuse, perhaps we should all take a trip to the Smithsonian Natural History Museum to learn about hunting and gathering before the collapse of civilization. Americans will need to familiarize ourselves with edible plants — big printings of the Peterson Field Guide to Edible Wild Plants should commence right away.

This kind of absurd hyperbole does nothing to advance arguments against this bill. Contrary to what Rep. McCotter may think, America’s future under this bill is clean and prosperous, not apocalyptic.

“By most reasonable estimates we will lose jobs .. Look at Spain (for every job they gained, they lost over 2)”

— Nathan Deal (R, GA), 6/26/09

The so-called “study” that Congressman Deal refers to has been widely debunked. Even that crazy lefty rag, the Wall Street Journal, did a story outlining the numerous ways in which it was flawed.

No big surprise there, though. Turns out the author of the study comes from a group funded by ExxonMobil.

The preponderance of economic impact studies point, instead, to the great potential for economic growth and job creation by shifting to a clean energy economy. That’s why this bill is widely supported by both labor and business groups. They know that if all you ever do is all you’ve ever done, all you’ll ever get is all you ever got.

“There hasn’t been any global warming .. they’re melting on Mars too.”

— Rep. Dana Rohrabacker (R-CA), 6/26/09

Ummm … we’ve heard of Governor Moonbeam. Is this the new Rep. Marvin the Martian?

Who exactly is melting on Mars? Are they Rep. Rohrabacker’s constituents?

If so, maybe he should suggest they move to a planet that’s more hospitable, one that actually HAS a climate — like Earth, for now, but maybe not for long if we don’t stop destroying ours.

“This will impose a Pelosi global warming tax… almost $3000 per family”

— Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), 6/26/09

“[The American Clean Energy and Security Act is a] Transfer of wealth bill .. [Americans will see] $1300 and $3100 in bills .. The taxpayer is the big loser”

— Rep. Marcia Blackburn (R-TN), 6/26/09

OH FOR PETE’S SAKE.

How many times do we have to correct this falsehood? The claim that ACES will cost families “$3,100” was first made in a March press release from the National Republican Congressional Committee.

The NRCC said its number was based on an MIT analysis of cap and trade legislation. But John Reilly, the author of the MIT study, wrote a letter to the NRCC telling them their math was incorrect.

Reilly’s comments on the $3100 claim: “It’s just wrong. It’s wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin.” And yet, people keep using it.

Here are the accurate figures: an EPA analysis puts the cost of a carbon cap on at $88-$140 per household per year over the life of the program – or about a dime a day per person. The Congressional Budget Office did a separate analysis and got similar results. Both studies show we could get all the benefits of a carbon cap for less than the cost of a postage stamp per day per family.