Filling the Gap Left by an Industry Group’s Canceled Announcement

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) were scheduled to release their new report on the economic impacts of the climate bill passed by the House today. They had planned a conference call to brief members of the media.

Unfortunately, they canceled – and left participating journalists without a story about the climate bill for today.

To fill that gap, Environmental Defense Fund has compiled some facts about the climate bill (ACES) from the most recent studies and most reputable sources out there. There’s plenty of information available; hopefully this will help journalists meet their deadlines.

  • The Energy Information Administration (EIA) says the cap on carbon pollution in ACES can be achieved for $83 per year per household – or a dime a day per person. One of the reasons for the affordability is that increases in electricity and natural gas bills of consumers are substantially mitigated through 2025 by the allocation of free allowances to regulated electricity and natural gas distribution companies. More about the study.
  • The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that ACES would cost the average household $175 a year by 2020, or about the cost of a postage stamp per day. The CBO also found that the poorest 20 percent of American households would actually see a net cash gain under the bill of about $40 in 2020. The study factored in the value of emissions allowances that will be rebated to consumers.
  • The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) puts the cost of a carbon cap at $88-$140 per household per year over the life of the program – or about a dime a day per person. (Sound familiar?)
  • The Energy Information Administration (see above) also says that ACES would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The U.S. would reduce its consumption of oil by 344 million barrels in the year 2030 alone, a cut of more than 12 percent from predicted imports for the same year without the bill.  To put that figure in perspective, 344 million barrels of oil are worth almost $26 billion today.
  • The United States Global Change Research Program, better known as the NOAA report, found that America will face hundreds of billions of dollars in costs if we don’t take steps to stop climate change. The cost of inaction will include: sea level rise of as much as two feet that will destroy property along our coasts; stronger hurricanes and other storms that will damage cities; and severe droughts that will devastate agricultural sectors. More highlights from the report.
  • shows thousands of U.S. companies that are already working in the energy efficiency or clean energy sectors, and are poised to grow under the carbon cap. EDF created this website to map out, state-by-state, where clean energy jobs are likely to be produced.
  • NAM/ACCF’s study from last year was seriously flawed. It looked at the earlier Lieberman-Warner bill, but it ignored important provisions of the legislation and imposed artificial constraints on the economy’s ability to reduce emissions. The analysis presumed there would be no banking of emission allowances and only limited use of offsets. The study also artificially constrained the use of renewable energy and carbon capture and storage. NAM has a long history of opposing virtually every major environmental law that’s been proposed, often using similar bad arguments with flawed data. Of course, they have a chance to get it right this year- once they finally release their new study.
This entry was posted in Economics. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.