Climate 411

The Waxman-Markey bill is “centralization run amok” and will lead to the federal government dictate what cars people drive, what fuel they use, and eventually how far they can live from their place of business — Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL)

Actually, the beauty of a carbon cap is that it allows the free market to determine the best and most cost-effective energy technologies. The federal government does not have to pick winners and losers. The technologies that work best will thrive, and more than one can thrive at the same time. Solar power may turn out to be cheap and easy in the Southwest, wind power on the Great Plains, and wave power along the Pacific coast. Reliance on a single fuel source, like oil, leads inevitably to centralization. A carbon cap will lead to exactly what Rep. Shimkus wants — less federal government control and more power in the hands of individuals and the free market.

The Waxman-Markey bill will increase utility bills. – Mike Rogers (R-MI)

Yes, it will.  By roughly what it costs to brew one pot of coffee in the morning, and substantially less than a pack of chewing gum.  EPA estimates this bill will cost the average American household as little as $98 per year – in other words, about a dime a day per person.

That’s nothing compared to what will happen to Planet Earth, and the economy, if we fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — punishing heat waves, droughts, water shortages, sea level rise that threatens coastal cities, food shortages around the world, intense hurricanes, and more.  Even the military is worried about the national security implications.  One never hears about these costs from the opponents of this bill – either because they don’t even believe global warming is real, or they refuse to believe what scientists are saying about the future consequences of inaction.

This bill will increase unemployment. It’s in the bill. – Mike Rogers (R-MI)

Jobs are created and destroyed in a market economy on a daily basis.  But new jobs — good jobs — will be created as U.S. companies ramp up production of clean energy technologies. The Energy Information Agency of the Department of Energy has predicted that total manufacturing employment will be roughly the same in the year 2030 under cap and trade versus business as usual.

These new jobs will come in dynamic new industries — from manufacturing, installing, and servicing green energy technologies.  EDF has created a map detailing where a carbon cap will create jobs in 14 states – go to www.lesscarbonmorejobs.org.

Green jobs are “subprime” and will disappear over time “just like leaves on a tree.” – Phil Gingrey (R-GA, yesterday)

Depends on what you call “subprime.”  Are jobs making steel for wind turbine towers “subprime”?  Are jobs making solar cells “subprime”?  Are jobs making energy-efficient windows?  How about jobs making wind turbine blades?  Or the 8,000 other component parts in a single wind turbine?  And why should these jobs disappear?  Like any machine, a wind turbine will wear out and need replacement.  In the meantime, mechanics will need to service it.  For decades, solar cells have been getting progressively more efficient.  Twenty years from now (or even sooner), it will become economically advantageous to replace the solar cells we install today, because the new cells will be more efficient.
Why are any of these jobs subprime?  Why would they disappear tomorrow?

China and India won’t sign on. – Mike Rogers (R-MI)

The U.S. is the undisputed economic, political, and military leader of the West.  Among Western nations, we are also the largest single emitter of greenhouse gas pollution.  One guarantee: China and India will not cap their greenhouse gas emissions unless the U.S. moves first.  But once the U.S. passes an emissions cap, then China and India can no longer use U.S. inaction as an excuse not to cap their carbon pollution. A cap and trade bill will unleash the entrepreneurs and venture capitalists in the U.S. waiting for Congress to act.  The new, green technologies they create can be manufactured here, used to reduce our emissions, and exported to nations like China and India.

This legislation will run off jobs to other countries that emit more carbon. – Steve Scalise (R-LA)

If you haven’t slept through the past 30 years, you’ve probably noticed that jobs have been “running off” to other countries for a long time.  Those larger trends will continue, as the U.S. continues its shift from a manufacturing to a service economy, for better or worse. A cap and trade bill, however, will help create U.S. manufacturing jobs.

A single wind turbine, for example, contains 250 tons of steel, along with 8,000 parts, from copper wire, gearboxes, and ball bearings to electronic controls.  A wind turbine tower contains more than 50 tons of steel.  Jobs making these components can be created here in America.  Reducing our carbon emissions will create jobs manufacturing other renewable energy technologies, manufacturing and installing advanced windows for energy efficient buildings, and making thousands of other products in America.

This bill picks winners and losers. – Nathan Deal (R-GA)

Again with the winners and losers thing.  For readers who didn’t see yesterday’s response:  The whole point of the cap and trade approach is to let private markets, not government, pick winners and losers.  We can all agree that government doesn’t do this well.  (See:  oil shale, 1970s.)  The private carbon market will reward companies that adopt the cheapest and most efficient technologies for reducing carbon.  See EDF’s Cap and Trade 101.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is holding hearings this week on landmark climate and energy legislation.

We are launching a regular Fact Check series to correct the record on false and misleading statements from climate action opponents.

The Waxman-Markey bill will give business incentives to close up shop and move to China. – Fred Upton (R-MI)

Investing in the clean energy of the 21st century will create jobs here in America – especially manufacturing jobs at companies across the country that are poised to make the nuts and bolts of clean energy technologies. For instance, one wind turbine requires 250 tons of steel and more than 8,000 parts – all of which can best be built by skilled U.S. workers and assembled, run, and maintained here on U.S. soil. EDF has created a map detailing where a carbon cap will create jobs in 14 states – go to www.lesscarbonmorejobs.org.

China is also already doing a great deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. China has stricture fuel economy standards for automobiles, for example. China will not take other important steps, however, until the U.S. – historically the largest emitter and the world’s largest economy – moves first to cap its own emissions.

We shut down our domestic nuclear industry. – Fred Upton (R-MI)

No new nuclear power plants have been built in the U.S. for two decades.  This is not because the U.S. has in any way forbidden the building of new plants.  It’s because no utility has proposed one, because they have become so expensive, despite extensive federal subsidies.  Nonetheless, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. electric utilities are planning to apply for licenses for 35 new nuclear power units.

The Waxman-Markey bill will cost each American family $4,800 per year. – Ralph Hall (R-TX)

 According to a new EPA analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate bill (the American Clean Energy and Security Act), a well-designed  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.

This bill will destroy 1.1 million jobs. – Ralph Hall (R-TX)

The Energy Information Agency of the Department of Energy has predicted that total manufacturing employment will be roughly the same in the year 2030 under a cap versus business as usual.

Once again, EDF has created a map detailing where a carbon cap will create jobs in 14 states – go to www.lesscarbonmorejobs.org.

This bill picks winners and losers. – Marsha Blackburn (R-TX)

The whole point of the cap and trade approach is to let private markets pick winners and losers, getting the government out of the way.  The private carbon market will reward companies that adopt the cheapest and most efficient technologies for reducing carbon.  See:  Cap and Trade 101 [pdf].

Carbon dioxide is not a deadly emittant (sic – there is no such word).  – John Shimkus, (R-IL)

Perhaps not in the sense of mustard gas.  In sufficient concentrations in the atmosphere, however, it would prove disastrous for both human society and the natural world.

This bill mandates environmental socialism.  It will break the back of families, forcing many out of their homes and into the street. – George Radanovich (R-CA)

Well, okayyy …

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.