Follow us on Twitter to hear our play-by-play of the mark-up of the American Clean Energy and Security Act! You can find Environmental Defense Fund on Twitter at www.twitter.com/EnvDefenseFund.
Monthly Archives: May 2009
New Ads: Utility Executives Discuss Keeping Costs Down
Keeping up our streak of unlikely partnerships, we’ve just launched a new campaign. It features the heads of two power companies talking with their customers about the best way to control costs. See what they have to say:
Jim Rogers, chairman of Duke Energy, says, “A well-designed cap will provide a smooth transition to clean energy. This will keep electricity affordable.”
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/46BF9h2Uwz0" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
John Rowe, CEO of Exelon, says: “A smart cap will control costs and protect your family’s budget.”
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/bLjZDoH_XvM" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
While we don’t agree with them on every environmental issue, these companies are important partners in passing climate change legislation. See more about this ad campaign.
The $3100 Lie That Won't Die
Claim:
“Anyone who thinks you can pay $3,100 to the federal government and thinks you can get that money back completely in services — like I said — he may go to M-I-T but he is an N-U-T.”
— Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) referring to Dr. John Reilly, the MIT economist who coauthored the 2007 “Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals [pdf].”
Truth:
Thanks to Think Progress’s The Wonk Room for reporting on Rep. Gohmert’s childish antics. Are we really resorting to name-calling when debating something as serious as global warming?
Beyond the question of maturity, Rep. Gohmert is repeating a lie that won’t die. As we point out in this Climate 411 post, the $3100 figure has been thoroughly debunked. There are lies, damn lies and then there’s this $3100 claim.
Rep. Gohmert and anyone else who continues to use this $3100 figure should know the facts.
Here’s what Dr. John Reilly, the author of the MIT study, told Politifact about the NRCC’s $3100 claim: “It’s just wrong. It’s wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin.”
And, in two recent letters to House Republican Leader John Boehner, Dr. Reilly asked that the NRCC stop using the “misleading” figure, noting that MIT’s estimates are less than one thirtieth of what the NRCC is claiming.
“A correct estimate of that cost … for the average household just in 2015 is about $80 per family, or $65 if more appropriately stated in present value terms discounted at an annual 4% rate,” Dr. Reilly wrote.
Go to Climate 411 for a more detailed response.
Global warming is a serious issue and it should be debated in a serious way. Rep. Gohmert should know better than to resort to lies and name-calling.
Climate and the $3,100 Lie Detector
How can you tell when a politician in Washington isn’t telling the truth? When they claim that the cost of capping carbon emissions and reducing foreign oil dependence will cost American families “$3,100.”
It’s become Talking Point Number One for opponents of action on climate change. Problem is, it’s entirely made up — so don’t get fooled. Ask where that number comes from.
The claim that carbon cap legislation proposed by Reps. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey 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 an MIT analysis of cap and trade legislation.
Here’s what John Reilly, the author of the MIT study, told Politifact about the NRCC’s claim: “It’s just wrong. It’s wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin.”
In two recent letters to House Republican Leader John Boehner, MIT’s Reilly asked that the NRCC stop using the “misleading” figure, noting that MIT’s estimates are less than one thirtieth of what the NRCC is claiming. “A correct estimate of that cost … for the average household just in 2015 is about $80 per family, or $65 if more appropriately stated in present value terms discounted at an annual 4% rate,” he said.
Reilly also pointed out that the MIT study is an “old analysis that is not well calibrated to either current legislative proposals or US economic conditions.” That’s important because the legislation now under debate in the House is expected to take further steps to ease cost impacts on consumers.
So why do Rep. Mike Pence and other opponents of cap and trade keep saying it will cost thousands? Either they are ignoring every credible analysis, or they’re very bad at math.
If they cite a study claiming astronomical costs, be sure to ask three key questions:
- Does the author of the study agree with the claims about their analysis?
- Does the analysis actually look at the current legislation under debate?
- What do the most recent, credible, and unbiased analyses say?
According to a new EPA analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate bill (the American Clean Energy and Security Act), an ambitious cap on carbon pollution can be met for as little as $98 per household per year over the life of the program – or about a dime a day per person.
In the early years the costs are even lower: Before 2012 it is zero — because the bill won’t have taken effect. By 2015, the costs “skyrocket” to 2 cents per person. Anyone who claims that now is the wrong time to cap carbon is engaging in scare tactics.
EPA’s analysis sets the gold standard by using two of the most credible, transparent, and peer-reviewed economic models available. It’s not a crystal ball, but it shows clearly that household costs will be modest under a well-designed cap and trade bill.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce vs. Some of Its Own Members
Recently, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been one of the loudest voices against a climate change bill. But now they have formidable opposition from … some of the members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
It looks like the Chamber started lobbying on this issue without checking with some of their largest members — like Johnson & Johnson and Nike — who support a carbon cap. Now the Chamber is getting called out in the press. Oops.
Here’s the story from Politico: “Chamber under fire on warming“