Climate 411

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.

The House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment 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.

Here’s our third installment:

The policies to spur innovation and utilize the creativity of America’s scientists and engineers are not in this bill. — Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)

The centerpiece of this bill will make clean energy profitable by capping carbon – and that’s exactly what will give scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs an economic incentive to create new technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have empirical evidence that cap and trade works. When the formula was applied in the 1990s to lower acid rain pollution from power plants, it worked faster and more cheaply than anyone predicted.

The expected market price for SO2 allowances was in the range of $579-$1,935 per ton of SO2. The actual market price in January, 2003 was $150 per ton.

This bill is a big energy tax. — Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)

The bill is not a tax. Under a cap on carbon, there will be a small increase in energy bills for the average American – and Congress has the tools it needs to protect U.S. consumers. The EPA estimates that the cap in the American Clean Energy and Security Act can be met for as little as $98 per household per year – about a dime a day per person. That’s roughly what it costs to brew one pot of coffee in the morning, and substantially less than a pack of chewing gum.

That’s nothing compared to what will happen to our economy and our pocketbooks if we fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — punishing heat waves, droughts, water shortages, rising sea levels, worldwide food shortages, intense hurricanes and more. Even the military is worried about the national security implications.

There is no smoking gun that people are responsible for global warming. — Mike Burgess, (R-TX)

The “smoking guns” are everywhere scientists look.

Fact: the decade of 1998-2007 was the warmest on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

Fact: glaciers are in retreat on every continent.

Fact: the Arctic Sea ice extent has been diminishing over the past 20 years in agreement with model predictions.

Fact: levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the last 600,000 years (and probably in the last 20 million), and getting higher every year.

Fact: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2,500 of the best climate scientists in the world, citing hundreds of the latest studies, has concluded that global warming is happening, and human activity is responsible. So has the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which even President George W. Bush called “the gold standard.”

Cap and trade legislation will export millions of jobs out of our economy.  — Steve Scalise, (R-LA)

Ohio has lost more that 213,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000. For Michigan, the figure is almost 497,000 jobs lost.

One way to create new jobs in America, including manufacturing jobs, is with a cap and trade bill to address climate change, which could spark a manufacturing renaissance. A single wind turbine contains 250 tons of steel, along with 8,000 parts, from copper wire, gearboxes and ball bearings to electronic controls. Jobs making these components, and installing and maintaining turbines, can be created here in America.

EDF has created a map detailing where a carbon cap will create jobs in 12 states – go to www.lesscarbonmorejobs.org.

Global warming will help sea life. — Joe Barton, (R-TX)

The ocean is acidifying because of increased absorption of atmospheric CO2, produced by human activity, posing a threat for shell-forming species, which are an essential part of the marine food web.

Many forms of ocean life that use calcium carbonate to form their skeletons or shells, including familiar species such as corals and shellfish. Ocean acidification makes it harder for these “calcifying organisms” to maintain themselves.

You can see why yourself with a simple experiment. Calcium carbonate comes in many forms, and is the primary component in chalk, lime, and marble. Take a piece of chalk and put it in a glass of water. It will just sit there – a wet piece of chalk. Now slowly pour in some vinegar – an acid. The water will start to bubble, emitting CO2, and the chalk will dissolve.

This is an exaggerated example of what’s happening in the ocean. The ocean isn’t as acidic as a glass of water with vinegar, so calcifying organisms aren’t actually dissolving in front of our eyes. But the ocean’s increased acidity makes it harder for them to form healthy shells and skeletons.

Changing ocean circulation patterns would also affect the nutrient delivery system for marine life. As oceans absorb more heat, upwellings of cold, nutrient-rich waters can become less frequent. Without this nourishment, blooms of plant plankton, a critical link in the marine food chain, are disrupted. Food for sea life up the food chain, like krill, larger fish, and seabirds, is cut off.

Some signs already show that the marine food web is fraying. In 2005 on the U.S. West Coast and 2004 in Britain, hundreds of thousands of seabirds failed to breed. Dead seabirds like cormorants and Cassin’s auklets have washed up on West Coast beaches. The culprit for the collapse appears to be slackening upwellings, which decreased phytoplankton blooms in these coastal areas. Fewer phytoplankton mean fewer fish, leaving the birds to face mass starvation.

The delta smelt is “a worthless little worm” that deserves to go the way of the dinosaurs. — George Radanovich (R-CA)

Actually, it’s a fish, not a worm. The delta smelt, once one of the most common fish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, is now listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The goal of the act is not just to protect single species but also the ecosystems on which they depend. Peter Moyle, a fisheries biologist at UC Davis, calls the delta smelt an indicator species: Its condition reflects the overall health of an ecosystem.

Unfortunately, no smelt were called before the Committee to testify that they deserve to live.

This Congress doesn’t know what will happen in a week, much less 30 years. — George Radanovich (R-CA)

If true, how can some members of Congress predict that global warming action will hurt the economy?

One thing we do know: In about one week some members of Congress will sieze this critical opportunity to take historic action to fight global warming while others will continue to blindly deny that human activity is causing global climate change, in the face of all scientific evidence.