Climate 411

Climate Action Opponents Just Can't Do Math

Claim:

(Under some provisions of the American Clean Energy and Security Act) “homeowners can be charged $100 a day for not being in compliance .. it’s a new tax on homeowners” — Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL), 6/26/09

Truth:

Here we go again with the phony cost estimates. The costs of the bill, according to EPA and CBO estimates, will be much closer to $100 per YEAR, not per DAY.

And still, climate action opponents, with no apparent regard for facts or honest debate, have repeatedly, purposefully, blatently, obnoxiously rehashed the $3100/year figure even though the MIT economist who’s study was apparently the basis for this claim has vigorously refuted it.

Where do climate action opponents get their marching orders? Kafka?

In truth, this bill would establish strong targets for energy efficiency in homes and commercial buildings — and then have states, local governments and building-industry professionals tailor local codes to meet those targets, using the same processes they already use today.

In no way does the bill suggest homeowners would be subject to fines. That’s just fiction. Rather, enforcement would remain a local matter just as it is today.

Furthermore, the bill says that new efficiency measures must be cost-effective, meaning the savings homeowners and businesses will see on their utility bills must outweigh the cost of the measures. This will help keep down costs down and reduce our national energy use all at the same time.

Posted in News / Read 1 Response

Carrying Big Oil's Water

Claim:

“The CBO and API say that gas prices are going to go up 77 cents a gallon” — Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), 6/26/09

Truth:

American Petroleum Institute (API) does say the CBO analysis ‘suggests’ gas prices would rise 77 cents a gallon.

Unfortunately, the CBO report doesn’t actually say anything of the kind — or ‘suggest’ it — or refer to it at all, really.

It’s not clear where API got this, but it’s certainly a shame Rep. Upton fell for it. A better estimate, from the EPA analysis, suggests gas prices will rise two-cents a year as a result of ACES. That’s nothing compared to the astronomical jumps in prices that brought us $4-dollar-a-gallon gas last year.

Maybe API has more information on those increases — since they do represent the oil and gas industries.

Posted in News / Comments are closed

Well, At Least They Have Their Talking Points Down

Claim:

The American Clean Energy and Security Act is the “largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change legislation … there is no debate that this legislation will cost millions of American jobs.” – Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), 6/26/09

Truth:

On the first point … sigh … here we go again.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Congressional Budget Office each analyzed the American Clean Energy and Security Act separately. The EPA found a carbon cap would cost the average American household as little as $88-$140 per household per year over the life of the program – or about a dime a day per person.

The CBO got similar results; it found we could get all the benefits of a carbon cap for less than the cost of a postage stamp per day per household. Anyone who thinks that’s the biggest tax increase in America’s history needs to brush up on their history.

On the second point … the one about costing jobs … how about it will create jobs. Today, trailblazers in the renewable energy, energy efficiency and manufacturing sectors are already operating in every state in the U.S. Those companies are poised to grow — and create jobs – when ACES passes.

To see a snapshot of the huge economic opportunities, check out www.LessCarbonMoreJobs.org, an innovative online map that shows over 2,000 clean energy companies in 20 states.

Posted in News / Comments are closed

Here We Go Again

Claim:

The American Clean Energy and Security Act is “a new tax that will cost every American $1,500-3,000 a year.” Jeb Hensarling (TX-R), 6/26/09

Truth:

How many times do we have to say it? The misquoted, misconstrued $3100 number is wrong. So wrong the author of the MIT report (where the NRCC got their numbers for their calculations) said the math is: “just wrong. It’s wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin.”

The continued use of this wrong information at this point is nothing less than a deliberate lie to the American people.

Once again, let’s look at more accurate report. The EPA and the CBO both reported a carbon cap would cost less than the cost of a postage stamp per day per family.

It’s time to be honest with the American people.

Posted in News / Comments are closed

Just a Big Old Tax

Claim:

The American Clean Energy and Security Act “would be the biggest tax in American history” – Rep. Pete Sessions, R-TX, 6/26/09

Truth:

Wrong. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Congressional Budget Office each analyzed the American Clean Energy and Security Act separately.

The EPA found a carbon cap would cost the average American household as little as $88-$140 per household per year over the life of the program – or about a dime a day per person.

The CBO got similar results; it found we could get all the benefits of a carbon cap for less than the cost of a postage stamp per day per family. Anyone who thinks that’s the biggest tax increase in America’s history needs to brush up on their history.

The Wall Street Journal mistakenly accused the CBO of not considering the full range of costs to the economy, but all the costs they cite as missing were fully taken into account by the study.

What’s more, neither study looked at the costs of inaction — the astronomical costs of fixing the damage that will be caused by unchecked climate change.

Posted in News / Comments are closed

Why This Is the Pivotal Climate Vote of Our Lives

We are 24 hours away from the most important climate vote of our lives. Everything hangs in the balance.

Either the House passes the American Clean Energy and Security Act and we carry momentum to the Senate. Or, we lose the vote and in all probability any chance of confronting the devastating threats of run-away global warming for the foreseeable future.

In recent weeks, we’ve asked our Action Network to keep the pressure on for passing this landmark bill. In response, our inbox has been flooded with comments and questions about this bill and the urgency for action.

We’ve tried to respond to each question individually but thought at this critical moment it would be helpful to explain why we are working so hard to pass this bill and why now is so important.

Why this bill, and why now?
Our vigorous effort to pass the landmark American Clean Energy and Security Act is based on a number of factors, including:

  • It is a strong bill that will put America on course to cutting global warming emissions by 83% by mid-century. This, along with cuts in other countries, is in the range of what scientists suggest is necessary to stave off the catastrophic threats of run-away global warming.
  • It has broad support from labor, environmental, and community groups, as well as valuable support from the business community and even many electric utilities and energy companies. In order to pass a bill of this magnitude, this broad support is essential.
  • It uses a proven policy approachcap-and-trade — that sets a declining cap on global warming pollution and creates a market that rewards innovation to clean-energy technologies. This same approach has dramatically reduced acid rain pollution at a fraction of the estimated costs.
  • Now is the time. Political momentum has built over many years to bring us to this moment in history, and we cannot squander it. Key political leaders from President Obama to Speaker Pelosi to Reps Waxman and Markey are engaged as never before on passing a good bill right now. If we lose the vote in spite of the political firepower devoted to this, it will set back our efforts for many years, which would be disastrous for the climate. Once lost, political momentum doesn’t easily regenerate.

Some of our online members and activists wonder whether we should be pushing for an even stronger bill or, short of that, whether we’d be better off allowing the EPA to regulate global warming pollution.

Keep the following in mind:

  • EPA has not yet established global warming regulations and it is not yet clear how they would approach the issue.
  • It could take years and many court battles before EPA regulations are set.
  • Nor is it clear how regulations would be handled over time with changing administrations.
  • The bill would replace EPA regulations with a clear policy that locks in emission reductions through mid-century.

This is why President Obama and his team, including EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, are fully behind passing the American Clean Energy and Security Act and favor legislation over regulation.

As to whether we should be supporting a stronger bill, we have to ask, what’s the alternative? What other bill stands a prayer’s chance of winning 218 votes in the House and 60 votes in the Senate? What other bill has the support of President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Reps. Waxman and Markey? What other bill could you even get out of the relevant committees?

Passing legislation of this magnitude is hard. Look at the efforts to reform health care. An entire generation of Americans has come and gone and that issue is not yet resolved.

If the planet is to avoid the catastrophic threat of run-away global warming, Congress must act now. We just don’t have time to waste.

Sam Parry is the director of EDF’s Action Network.

Posted in Climate Change Legislation / Read 2 Responses