Climate 411

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.