Climate 411

“By most reasonable estimates we will lose jobs .. Look at Spain (for every job they gained, they lost over 2)”

— Nathan Deal (R, GA), 6/26/09

The so-called “study” that Congressman Deal refers to has been widely debunked. Even that crazy lefty rag, the Wall Street Journal, did a story outlining the numerous ways in which it was flawed.

No big surprise there, though. Turns out the author of the study comes from a group funded by ExxonMobil.

The preponderance of economic impact studies point, instead, to the great potential for economic growth and job creation by shifting to a clean energy economy. That’s why this bill is widely supported by both labor and business groups. They know that if all you ever do is all you’ve ever done, all you’ll ever get is all you ever got.

“There hasn’t been any global warming .. they’re melting on Mars too.”

— Rep. Dana Rohrabacker (R-CA), 6/26/09

Ummm … we’ve heard of Governor Moonbeam. Is this the new Rep. Marvin the Martian?

Who exactly is melting on Mars? Are they Rep. Rohrabacker’s constituents?

If so, maybe he should suggest they move to a planet that’s more hospitable, one that actually HAS a climate — like Earth, for now, but maybe not for long if we don’t stop destroying ours.

“This will impose a Pelosi global warming tax… almost $3000 per family”

— Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), 6/26/09

“[The American Clean Energy and Security Act is a] Transfer of wealth bill .. [Americans will see] $1300 and $3100 in bills .. The taxpayer is the big loser”

— Rep. Marcia Blackburn (R-TN), 6/26/09

OH FOR PETE’S SAKE.

How many times do we have to correct this falsehood? The claim that ACES 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 on an MIT analysis of cap and trade legislation. But John Reilly, the author of the MIT study, wrote a letter to the NRCC telling them their math was incorrect.

Reilly’s comments on the $3100 claim: “It’s just wrong. It’s wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin.” And yet, people keep using it.

Here are the accurate figures: an EPA analysis puts the cost of a carbon cap on at $88-$140 per household per year over the life of the program – or about a dime a day per person. The Congressional Budget Office did a separate analysis and got similar results. Both studies show we could get all the benefits of a carbon cap for less than the cost of a postage stamp per day per family.

“66,000 Pennsylvanians will lose their jobs … How dare you do that to my constituents.” — Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL)

Well, last we checked, Rep. Shimkus represents Illinois, not Pennsylvania.

Either way, we urge Rep. Shimkus, and everyone else, to check our www.LessCarbonMoreJobs.org, which maps 2,000 companies across America posed to grow and add jobs under a carbon cap like the one in ACES.

Pennsylvania is one of the states with the most growth potential, since they already have the factories and skilled workers that will be needed to create the infrastructure for a new, clean energy economy.

By the way, Rep. Shimkus’ own state of Illinois also has a lot of businesses that will benefit — although we appreciate his concern for the Keystone State.

But for a local view, talk to Mayor John Fetterman of Braddock, Pennsylvania. He’s been working to get ACES passed because he sees it as the best hope for reviving his struggling steel town.

“The point of this bill is to make fossil fuels more expensive … (the American Clean Energy and Security Act) Will only cause more economic hardship for farmers and small businesses.” – Rep. Glenn Thompson, Jr. (R, PA-5), 6/26/09

Rep. Thompson doesn’t get it. The point of this bill is to curb carbon pollution, not unjustly penalize those that have carbon intensive industries.

Why else would companies whose bread and butter depend on fossil fuels support this bill? Small businesses support this legislation.

The ACES Act will help many small businesses, not hurt them. Thousands of companies are already working in renewable energy or energy efficiency sectors around the country, and this bill will create demand — and customers — for their products.

Manufacturers will also benefit. For instance, one wind turbine needs 8,000 separate parts, from ball bearings to wires to blades. We already have factories getting refitted to make these parts.

“The EPA will tell our farmers how to manage their farms … this bill will tax you.” Rep Frank Lucas — (R-OK), 6/26/09

Rep. Lucas is wrong. This bill specifically prohibits agriculture from being regulated under a carbon cap, which means farmers will not be “taxed.”

However, farmers will have the opportunity to voluntarily sell offsets, if they so choose. That will be a new income source for farmers who want to take advantage of the opportunity to reduce emissions from their operations.

What’s more, under the terms of the Manager’s Amendment, this program would be administered entirely by USDA — NOT by EPA — which is what a coalition of farm-state lawmakers wanted.