Climate 411

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 during the subcommittee and subsequent full committee debate to correct the record on false and misleading statements from climate action opponents.

Here’s our first installment:

The renewable energy requirements in this bill are entirely unrealistic. — Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) 

A cap on carbon will unleash the investment necessary for America to meet this target. Our steel plants need orders, our factories need new customers, and our exporters need high value products to sell to Asia and Europe. A cap will drive enormous clean energy investments throughout the supply chain – generating demand for ball bearings and steel for wind turbines, glass and plastics for solar cells, and hundreds of new technologies.

We know cap and trade works because we have empirical evidence. In the 1990s, the U.S. acid rain cap and trade program achieved 100% compliance in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions. In fact, power plants participating in the program reduced SO2 emissions 22% — 7.3 million tons — below mandated levels.

All this has been achieved at a fraction of the cost estimates. Prior to the launch of the program, costs were estimated to run from $3-$25 billion per year. After the first 2 years of the program, the costs were actually $0.8 billion per year and the long-term costs of the program are expected to be around $1.0-$1.4 billion per year, far below early projections.

The doom-and-gloomers were wrong then. And they’re wrong now.

We must be plain, and we must be honest when we discuss this system. It will pull thousands more out of the family budget every year. — Marsha Blackburn, R-TN

A cap on carbon pollution will help break America’s addiction to oil and create jobs, while protecting the family budget. Best of all, it’s affordable. Based on EPA estimates, it will only cost the average American household about 12 to 15 cents a day more. That’s roughly what it costs to brew one pot of coffee in the morning.

The cost of this cap-and-trade system will kill agriculture long before global warming does. — George Radanovich (R-CA)

Nothing will kill California agriculture faster than global warming. Southern California is already subtropical in the summer. But with climate change, the dry conditions of Southern California could spread to areas like northern California, Washington and Utah.

That means climate change hits the California agriculture with a double whammy — a shift to a climate with less precipitation coupled with the loss of the mountain snowpack that acts as a reservoir for the state, which the state is already experiencing now.

In a worst case, Energy Secretary Chu has said, up to 90% of the Sierra snowpack could disappear, all but eliminating a natural storage system for water vital to agriculture. Actually, under a cap and trade policy, farmers will have the chance to profit in the new carbon markets.

We lack the fundamental piece of evidence that humans are causing global warming. — Mike Burgess, TX

Where to begin?

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: Arctic sea ice extent has been diminishing over the past 20 years in agreement with model predictions, according to NOAA.

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

Largest assault on democracy & freedom in this country I’ve ever experienced. — John Shimkus (R-IL)

Well, okay…

Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, wrote an op-ed Monday in the Capitol Hill newspaper, Roll Call, complaining that global warming action will cost too much.

And, he might have a point — if his facts were, well, factual.

Instead, his sensationalistic claims seem to justify his opposition to global warming action rather than engage in a clear-headed debate.

In this Truth Squad entry, we’ll examine his op-ed point by point:

That’s Not What MIT’s Report Says

Claim:

“According to a Massachusetts Institute of Technology model of a 100 percent auction cap-and-tax, the American people will be taxed $366 billion in 2015 — four times as much as the president’s estimate of $80.3 billion for that year… A family of four could expect to pay as much as $4,560 in additional costs in 2015.”

Truth:

MIT has publicly berated the NRCC’s misrepresentation of its report, yet the unwarranted claims using these incorrect estimates keep resurfacing.  According to MIT, the correct estimate of the cost for an average household in 2015 is about $65 per family.

It’s 10 cents a Day

Claim:

“Increased energy costs would near $1 trillion in 2030. Increases in electricity costs could be more than 100 percent.”

Truth:

A cap on carbon pollution will help break America’s addiction to oil and create jobs, while protecting the family budget.

Best of all, it’s affordable. For example, based on Department of Energy estimates, it will only cost the average American household about ten cents a day more on their utility bills — this includes electricity AND heating. That’s roughly what it costs to brew one pot of coffee in the morning.

A Cap Will Unleash American Innovation

Claim:

“There is no help for businesses that may move across our borders or permanently shut down operations. Not welcome news, especially with one-third of our jobs dependent on exports. Quite simply, cap-and-trade caps our growth and trades our jobs.”

Truth:

Maintaining the competitive edge of the U.S. is a critical issue that has not been lost on the policy-makers on Capitol Hill— all cap proposals include provisions to avoid losing out to overseas industry.

The real question is which countries and companies will be exporting new clean energy technologies — likely the biggest new business of the 21st century. A cap will unleash the investment necessary for America to get ahead in this race.

Our steel plants need orders, our factories need new customers, and our exporters need high value products to sell to Asia and Europe.

A cap will drive enormous clean energy investments throughout the supply chain– generating demand for ball bearings and steel for wind turbines, glass and plastics for solar cells, and hundreds of new technologies.

President Obama recognized this when he explained that the effort to create millions of jobs and restore American leadership will ‘start with a federal cap and trade system.’

Cap and Trade is a Proven Environmental Policy

Claim:

“Cap-and-tax can only hurt the economy while providing a questionable environmental benefit.”

Truth:

When a similar cap-and-trade policy was proposed for reducing acid rain pollution during the 1990 Clean Air Act battle, our opponents made this very same argument over and over. It’ll cost too much. It won’t work.

What happened? Well, the cap on sulfur dioxide pollution worked so well that The Economist crowned it “probably the greatest green success story of the past decade.” (July 6, 2002).

In the 1990s, the U.S. acid rain cap and trade program achieved 100% compliance in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions. In fact, power plants participating in the program reduced SO2 emissions 22% — 7.3 million tons — below mandated levels.

All this has been achieved at a fraction of the cost estimates. Prior to the launch of the program, costs were estimated to run from $3-$25 billion per year. After the first 2 years of the program, the costs were actually $0.8 billion per year and the long-term costs of the program are expected to be around $1.0-$1.4 billion per year, far below early projections.

The doom-and-gloomers were wrong then. And they’re wrong now.

The U.S. Must Lead

Claim:

“The U.S. cannot go it alone in the effort to cut greenhouse gases. Absent a global agreement that includes the heavy-emitting developing countries, cap-and-tax will only send energy costs up while sending employment numbers down.”

Truth:

The Congressman will be happy to know that 183 countries have signed and ratified the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty, which calls for emission reductions from developed countries and other commitments from lesser developed countries. In fact, the United States is one of only 14 countries not to ratify the Kyoto agreement, joining the likes of Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Brunei. We’ve been going it nearly alone alright — alone in inaction.

Rep. Upton actually makes the case for domestic global warming action this year. The world will meet again in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December to negotiate the next international agreement for global climate action. If we fail to lead on this issue by acting domestically, we will have a weaker negotiating position from which to shape the international debate to our liking.

Five Principles of Successful Global Warming Action

Claim:

“Any climate change legislation must adhere to five basic principles: 1) provide a tangible environmental benefit to the American people; 2) advance technology and provide the opportunity for export; 3) protect American jobs; 4) strengthen U.S. energy security; and 5) require global participation.”

Truth:

1) Check; 2) Check; 3) Check; 4) Check; 5) Check. Hard to argue with these goals — in fact, they are some of the same goals that will be achieved when we pass a comprehensive cap on America’s global warming pollution as proposed under the draft Waxman-Markey Clean Energy and Security Act.

83% reduction of America’s global warming emissions by 2050 (as called for in the bill) is about as tangible an environmental benefit as you can get — it is entirely consistent with what most scientists say is necessary to avoid the catastrophic threats of run-away global warming.

Want more green energy technologies? A cap will unleash our clean energy future by creating powerful market incentives to invent and deploy new green energy innovation.

Concerned about jobs? As we’ve shown in our Less Carbon More Jobs report, a cap on carbon will put Americans back to work.

What about our reliance on foreign oil? A cap will begin to free us from our dependence on imported oil.

And, when it comes to global participation, bold leadership from the United States will encourage China, India and other emerging economies to the table — if we don’t show leadership, how can we possibly expect other countries to act?