Climate 411

Climate and the $3,100 Lie Detector

By / Published: May 7, 2009

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:

  1. Does the author of the study agree with the claims about their analysis?
  2. Does the analysis actually look at the current legislation under debate?
  3. 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.

Posted in Climate Change Legislation, Economics / Read 4 Responses

More Solar Power: The Future, Here and Now

By / Published: April 24, 2009

That’s what David Yarnold had to say about the Earth Day announcement from Wal-Mart and BP Solar to double the number of solar panels on Wal-Mart stores in California over the next 18 months.  The new solar installation project will create more than a hundred jobs while reducing use of energy from the power grid. (See a video of him discussing the announcement on Governor Schwarzanegger’s blog.)

David emphasized that even with progress like this, we still need Congress to act:

We need a national cap on carbon to limit emissions, and a way to reward companies and states that develop and utilize clean energy solutions such as solar. The commitment to Wal-Mart [that] BP is making today is a step in the right direction.

Posted in Energy / Read 1 Response

Man of Steel Comes to Washington

By / Published: April 22, 2009

Today, I am heading to Capitol Hill with John Fetterman, mayor of Braddock, Pa.  Mayor Fetterman recently lent his voice to Environmental Defense Action Fund’s “Carbon Caps=Hard Hats” ad campaign, which calls on Congress to pass climate change legislation.

On this Earth Day, the House Energy and Commerce Committee is holding hearings centered around the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES), and they asked the mayor to come talk about jobs.

Braddock used to be a booming steel town. When the steel manufacturing sector left in the 1970s, Braddock gradually slumped, falling from a population of 20,000 to 2,000.

When John Fetterman first came to Braddock, he saw potential, thinking not as an environmentalist, but as a citizen wanting to revitalize a community. He sees Braddock, and other cities that depend on steel (like Akron, Ohio, and Detroit, Mich.,), ready for economic growth. He has a vision of restoring jobs that left with the steel industry. And what can trigger that growth is a cap on carbon.

So today, the mayor is on Capitol Hill to tell Congress that there are jobs in renewable energy and steel, and if they pass a carbon cap, there will be jobs in Braddock, Pa.

Posted in Climate Change Legislation, News, Partners for Change / Read 2 Responses

Here’s a REAL Burden on Our Economy

By / Published: April 15, 2009

In an op-ed for the Miami Herald, EDF’s executive director, David Yarnold, tells this story:

A small town in Ohio has such a high unemployment rate that almost 700 people lined up to apply for one job opening,  for a school janitor. Just down the road is a renewable energy company that’s poised to grow and add jobs as soon as we put a cap on carbon pollution.

As David put it:

You’ll hear opponents of climate change legislation talk about the “burden” that capping carbon will place on our economy. However, they won’t talk about the burden that 10-percent-plus unemployment puts on our communities, or the burden that standing on line with 700 other job applicants puts on individuals. Clinging to the status quo won’t get us out of this recession.

A new energy economy is our best chance for a better future, and we can’t afford not to take this opportunity.

See the whole column.

Posted in News / Comments are closed

Major Climate Policy Coverage From Major News Sources

By / Published: March 25, 2009

Mainstream media is delving into the details of climate policy at a level we just didn’t see a couple years ago. Here’s a sampling from this week:

Newsweek asked whether we can still afford to invest in an environmentally-friendly economy, and to find out, they talked with our president, Fred Krupp. He gave this example of how green investments make sense all around:

When we make the energy high-efficiency, low-carbon, we can create all types of jobs—jobs that weatherize homes that create dollars that stay here instead of going overseas to pay for imported oil. We can create jobs that produce the materials for weatherization, we can create jobs to make wind turbines and install them. It’s not only high-tech jobs we’re creating, it’s a tremendous number of jobs in existing, familiar businesses. (Read the two-page interview.)

The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Fred Krupp yesterday. He starts by observing:

When Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson says he favors a carbon tax over a cap-and-trade system, it’s worth asking why the energy giant would want to put a government levy on its own product.

Why, indeed? A tax would not set a legal limit on the pollution created by Exxon’s products. A cap would.

And finally, this line from a Los Angeles Times editorial calls out the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a business lobbying group:

There will be winners and losers in the clean-energy economy, and those who stand to lose have the loudest voices in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The winners won’t just be green-technology innovators; they include everybody on Earth.

Posted in What Others are Saying / Comments are closed

Links: Ignoring the Benefits and 10 Things to Keep in Mind

By / Published: March 12, 2009

Matthew Yglesias over at ThinkProgress took the one of my favorite points — that when you look at the cost of capping carbon, you also have to look at what you get for your money — and made a nice analogy:

This seems like an important point! If I added up the ruinous costs of auto ownership—thousands of dollars in up front costs, fuel costs, repairs, insurance, etc.—but forgot to mention that you get to drive your car around it would seem baffling that anyone buys one. The same principle applies to carbon pricing.

Here’s the whole post.

And in case you missed the piece by Kevin Drum at Mother Jones, he looks at 10 key things to keep in mind about a cap on carbon. It’s a nice clear explanation (and I’m not just saying that because he quoted me!).

Posted in What Others are Saying / Comments are closed