Climate-change legislation would cost the average household $175 a year by 2020, according to the Congressional Budget Office, far below the figure commonly used by GOP critics of the House bill.
The CBO said yesterday that the poorest 20 percent of American households would actually receive a $40 benefit in 2020 from the legislation, which would establish a cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions, while the richest 20 percent of households would see a net cost of $245 a year.
Supporters of action, of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, are trumpeting this CBO report, highlighting that it proves that it will only cost “a postage stamp a day“.
“Americans know that building a clean energy economy has real value, and this CBO analysis proves it,” said Rep. Markey. “Low-income American families will see a $40 benefit from using more wind and solar energy and less foreign oil. And for the cost of about a postage stamp a day, all American families will see a return on their investment as our nation breaks our dependence on foreign oil, cuts dangerous carbon pollution and creates millions of new clean energy jobs that can’t be shipped overseas.”
These advocates are doing a disfavor to the American public. And to the cause of serious action to reduce climate change impacts. In fact, the CBO report is almost certainly overstating the actual costs because it, quite explicitly, is understating the benefits of action.
Very simply, if anything, the CBO scoring is overly negative since it doesn’t consider systems-of-systems implications.
Job creation and, therefore, lowered governmental services demand: not in the calculation. (Trading imported oil for jobs building up an electrified rail network, for example …)
Economic implications of climate change — and the avoided costs due to reduced pollution: not included.
Health care benefits (to federal budget and otherwise) due to reduced fossil fuel pollution: not included.
Increased productivity due to better health and better working conditions: not included.
The analysis didn’t even include the bill’s strong energy efficiency provisions, which are direct cost savers.
CBO specifically notes that this figure “does not include the economic benefits and other benefits of the reduction in GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions and the associated slowing of climate change.” In particular, CBO did not analyze the energy efficiency improvements and resulting savings in energy costs that will result from the ACES Act’s investment of over $60 billion in the next ten years in energy efficiency and required improvements in energy efficiency. One outside group, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), has estimated that the benefits of the energy efficiency provisions in ACES, which generally were not included in the CBO estimate, will save consumers $22 billion in 2020 alone, with cumulative savings of $3,900 per household by 2030.
The $175 figure is, if anything, pessimistic.
In fact, CBO probably has the sign wrong — it shouldn’t be a negative (in terms of cost) but positive (in terms of returned value for investment).
Yes, letters to the editor matter. And, yes, they merit fact-checking. And, yes, that fact-checking should actually be well-done.
Having had letters to the editor published in The Washington Post, my experience with the fact-checking process left me impressed … and exhausted. Every point was questioned and challenged, with substantive backing required from the editor before it went into print. Watching the Post editorial page’s (mis)handling of George Will’s Will-ful deception re energy and climate issues, a question emerges: Is it only those who are operating in reality when it comes to climate and energy issues who are seriously challenged to support there assertions.
Yesterday’s Post had a deceptive, half-truthful letter to the editor entitled The Not-So-Quite-Green Toyota Prius which included this statement:
CNW Marketing rates cars on the combined energy needed “to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage.” A Prius costs $2.87 per lifetime mile. By comparison, an H3 Hummer costs $2.07 per lifetime mile
I am mocking this report because it is the most contrived and mistake-filled study I have ever seen — by far (and that’s saying a lot since I worked for the federal government for five years). I am not certain there is an accurate calculation in the entire report.
Making an assumption that Hummers last 379,000 miles, Prius only 109,000. Thus, not just in weight, it takes more than three Prius to make one Hummer for CMS to arrive at their skewed results.
A Prius, which gets in the range of 45 miles per gallon, has a fuel cost of 7.5 cents per mile. The Hummer, at less than 15 mpg, has a fuel cost of 18.7 cents per mile. Hmmm …
The calculations border on insanity. See that price. If we accept that Prius cost, it would cost the owner (and society) $287,000 for a Prius to drive 100,000 miles. Anyone else ready to ask: WTF?
Does anyone suspect that The Washington Post editorial board has the sensibility to be embarassed by publishing this absurd letter citing such a deceptive and deceitful marketing “study”? As Romm finished his discussion of this study back in 2007:
As for CNW, the only explanation I can come up for this absurdity piled on top of absurdity is that the marketing firm is putting on an elaborate hoax, seeing how many reputable news organizations repeat these laughable numbers without bothering to check the original study to see that they have no basis whatsoever in fact. After all, no one could believe all this. Could they?
Well, evidently Washington Post “fact checkers” are perfectly satisfied publishing this drivel. After all, George Will-full Deceit Will cited the study in his call for people to Use a Hummer to Crush a Prius.
June 19th, 2009 · Comments Off on Take me out to a Green Ballgame …
This Saturday, going out to a local ball park could be a fun evening with a “green” theme. Bethesda Green, a non-profit working to help Bethesda, Maryland, green itself is having a fundraising event with the semi-pro Bethesda Big Train. The Big Train is truly that ‘family friendly park’, small, low cost, and almost always with things going on.
This will be quite a busy night at that ballpark. Putting aside watching a game, Bethesda Green will be joined by The Big Green Bus, which is a Dartmouth College student project taking a vegetable oil powered bus around the country for climate change awareness (and action) and The Honest Tea company.
Putting aside that Green element, this will be a busy evening with “Carnival Night”, Teacher Appreciation Night, Great Book night with a number of authors …
Sigh … if the stadium were only at a Metro stop …
Comments Off on Take me out to a Green Ballgame …Tags:Energy
There is something tangibly rewarding when after have put your hands in warm soil, planting for your own table, to being able to harvest bounty from the soil.
While it might be fun to get one’s hands dirty, rewarding to see the ‘fruits of one’s labor’ on the plate before you, and tasty to eat this fresh, pesticide-free food, this connects to larger issues. [Read more →]
When contemplating the path of climate legislation over the past several years, we must address a continual question and challenge for those (which should be all of us) concerned that our political system is proving unable to come up with a policy and regulatory framework that provides any real hope for putting us (the United States) on a path toward a secure, prosperous and climate-friendly future: Do climate-change leaders know how to play political hard-ball?
Sadly, the record seems to indicate no. For example, in the path that led to the Lieberman-Warner Coal-Subsidy Act (misleadingly entitled the Climate Security Act) in 2007-2008, the strongest bills in the House and Senate would have placed the United States on a path toward 80 percent reductions by 2050. This 80 percent, however, is a minimum target, based on now-dated science, for putting us on a path with a 50 percent chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change. With increased emissions and delay in action, that target is likely insufficient even for that 50 percent. But, even more importantly, does no one in Congress believe that we should aim for something that provides better than a 50 percent chance of avoiding utter catastrophe? As the 80 by 2050 target was the “extreme” case of submitted legislation, the very basic political processes made this “extreme” (but minimum required) case something to be negotiated away from. Would Chairmans Waxman and Markey been in stronger negotiating positions if some group of Representatives had introduced a bill that aimed for something stronger than 80 by 2050?
“As this bill stands today, I can’t vote for it,” Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Ia.. “I don’t know of anyone else in the committee who can.”
Boswell and Peterson and others are standing firm against action unless ACES is radically weakened in favor of corporate agricultural interests (especially, but not solely, corn-based ethanol) over sensible climate-friendly agricultural policies.
Vice President Gore has spoken strongly in favor of Waxman-Markey, calling it “the moral significance equivalent to that of the civil rights legislation of the 1960s and the Marshall Plan of the late 1940s.”
If Waxman-Markey really is so unbelievably awesome, as … Al Gore and … keep arguing, then we should be doing everything possible to pass it. Instead, Al Gore and … seem to be giving the Democrats on the Agriculture Committee a free pass on significantly watering down the bill. I have no idea this is happening, but it certainly isn’t because they are using all available, politically realistic means to pass Waxman-Markey.
Chris’ question and challenge is to those who seek, it seems, to shout down questioning of ACES, even as it continues to be weakened and undermined by special interest action. They argue that “this is the best that we can get”. Chris has a suggestion:
Start playing some hardball, or stop telling us that we are about to get the best climate change bill politically possible.
Al Gore has said global warming is one of the great moral issues of our time. It’s time for him and other prominent environmental advocates to lean on the House Democrats who are undermining Waxman-Markey.
June 17th, 2009 · Comments Off on “Architecture 2030” Plan to Revive Economy
A guest post from Craig Severance at Energy Economy Online discussing Ed Mazria’s Architecture 2030 concept for job creation and economic stimulus through a massive energy efficiency investment in America’s buildings through a mortgage subsidy program. Quite simply, this is perhaps the most valuable W5 strategy (win economically (stimulus, competitiveness, etc), win on energy, win on jobs, win on social equity, win on environmental/global warming) that we could pursue. Put the building industry and the millions unemployed at work making America’s buildings more energy efficient and increasing distributed energy production. And, doing so in a way that likely would end up paying for itself. I’ve written often on Architecture 2030 and welcome a chance to share Craig’s perspective.
Message to Washington: You’re not getting it – we’re still out of work. WInd farms and energy efficient public buildings are important, but what about the housing industry? The recession started with the housing industry — and can end if we bring back construction — so lets focus on the real problem.
That’s the heart of the message to Congress and the Obama administration from a group of architects and builders who are promoting a plan to end the recession by revitalizing America’s housing industry.
Can we say better later than never? Earlier today, the RES-Alliance for Jobs held a press conference announcing a broad alliance of businesses to fight for a serious Renewable Electricity Standard.
“This is the first time that we’ve had the renewable energy come together under one umbrella because we’re ready to go, now. ” Dr. Charles Gay, Applied Solar
This group has come together to fight for something like the renewable electricity targets that candidate Obama set out: a doubling of renewable energy by 2012 and 25 percent of US electricity from renewable energy by 2025.
Let us be clear, these are eminently doable targets. Without question. But, this is far stronger than what we are seeing in both House and Senate legislation. The House ACES has a 20% by 2020 target, with 8 percent of that from efficiency (plus some loopholes). The Senate bill has a 15% standard, with 4% by efficiency (and, again, more loopholes). The politics, therefore, aren’t supportive of getting to the sort of levels that are clearly achievable. Educating Congress about the viability of these targets is a key goal for the alliance.
“The whole purpose is to educate decision-makers about the implications, across the entire process, as to the implications of their decisions.” Denise Bode, AWEA
There are real concerns, across all these companies, that the current bill won’t drive enough investment into the renewable energy sector to help the nation achieve these doable targets.
“What we are concerned about, particularly, is that the legislation as currently written creates a business as usual situation in 2012-2013. … The bills are not providing the type of structural support that will allow renewable energy projects to attract capital and get off the ground.” Robert Cleaves, Biomass Power Association
This sort of higher RES target is what MoveOn and environmental organizations are calling for as well … independent of this business association effort. And, this is something that Americans want …
A national poll conducted by Garin Hart Yang Research Group from April 29-May 1 found that:
A national 25% RES draws strong and deep support: Three-quarters (75%) of voters favor an RES proposal requiring electric utility companies across the nation to generate at least 25% of their electricity through renewable energy sources by 2025, and that support is deep: a 53% majority strongly favors a national RES, dwarfing the total of those who oppose (both “strongly” and “somewhat”) (16%).
Support for the RES is bipartisan: 62% of Republicans favor the RES proposal, as do 71% of independents and 86% of Democrats.
Support for the RES runs nationwide, ranging from 84% positive in the Northeast, three-quarters support in the Midwest and West, and 71% support in the South.
Now, while this is a useful step forward, let’s lay out concerns. When questioned, quite directly,
The group refused to state a specific target for RES that they would like rather than ‘something better’ than what is in the House / Senate bills. This suggests that they can claim “victory” with even the most marginal improvements in mediocre RES standards.
The speakers could (or would) not lay out a Washington strategy, how they plan to influence a discussion that is (clearly) well underway.
Thus, better late than never … and hopefully not too late. And, better something than nothing, but hopefully they will lay a more serious marker than “better” in the future.
Amid the supplemental appropriations bill (warning, 144 page pdf), currently awaiting vote after a Conference Committee, is the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save (CARS) Program (pages 52-58). Naming bills in deceptive and often cutesy terms has truly become an art form. The CARS Program merits being in the same zone as the ever-so appealing sounding No Child Left Behind or Healthy Forests, an ever-so appealing name that doesn’t stand up to any serious scrutiny. To put it simply, rather than the CARS Program, this might be more appropriate called the C.R.A.P.P.: Consciously Rewarding Augmenting Pollution Program.
CARS is a program to provide incentives to drivers of old, fuel-inefficient vehicles to buy new, slightly less inefficient vehicles. Often called “cash for clunkers”, the developed legislation is structured in a way that makes it inequitable, inefficient, wasteful (on multiple levels) and (being very generous) very marginally productive re long-term interests to reduce our oil dependency and cut greenhouse gas emissions. The C.R.A.P. Program is a sad comment on special interest influence on Congress along with the inability of logical analysis to influence a program toward something more intelligent.
In short, the bill is promised to target selling 1 million more vehicles before the end of the year and support these three policy priorities:
Reduce dependence on foreign oil,
Reduce air pollution, and
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The bill does this via “cash for clunkers”, vouchers to owners of old vehicles to encourage them to go shopping for a new vehicle and scrap the old one. As an example, when it comes to light passenger vehicles, owners (at least one year registered) of a car rated at less than 18 miles per gallon can receive a $3500 voucher (tax free) for a new car if it gets at least 22 miles per gallon and $4500 if it gets at least 28 mpg.
Why is this a bad bill, on both basic policy and basic analytical reasons?
Anti-Science Syndrome (ASS) sufferer Hater of Liberal Economics (HOLE) Glenn Beck evidently envisions himself as the rightful successor of one of the greatest names in political theory and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States with his publication of Glenn Beck’s Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government inspired by Thomas Paine. Putting aside the arrogance of this association, we should wonder whether the hateful Beck is turning over a new, Kumbaya leaf.
Eugene, Ore.: Mr. Beck, over the last 20 years we have seen deregulated free market capitalism make a mess of the energy market (Enron), the financial markets, and the planet — unmanaged natural resource harvest, global species loss, industrial toxins in our water, all at the cost of the common man or woman. Isn’t regulation really a common sense approach to containing human greed?
Glenn Beck: No. Self-regulation is the common sense approach to regulating greed. What our founders called indispensable, the application of the laws of nature’s God. And we have totally abandoned those things. Corporations need to know that by screwing the other guy, be it the janitor or another company, is bad long-term for the company. Polluting the rivers and skies to make a tire cheaper is ultimately bad for the company.
According to Glenn Beck, it seems, there is zero reason for government regulation and government oversight since, well, we should all get along and do the right thing.
With much more hypocrisy, almost certainly, Beck is calling for the unbridled market to the answer to all environmental and social challenges. Considering individuals’ and business readiness to dump pollutants into the commons (whether a tire into the woods, old oil down a storm drain, or 100,000 tons of CO2 out a smokestack each year), it is hard to see how even an ASS-suffering HOLE like Glenn “Kumbaya” Beck can take his own words seriously. [Read more →]
evening with a “green” theme.