Why Is CBS Lying About Climate Change?

People wonder why traditional media sources are failing. And while there are lots of reasons, one of them is that, well, the product they are providing is, how does one say this, crap.

Declan McCullagh, who works at CBS Interactive, had some, let's just call it, credibility problems of epic proportions today. It started with a post he wrote about a secret internal Obama administration memo on the cost of the Global Warming legislation (more on that in a second)

In his work, Declan claimed that he is the "Chief Political Correspondent" for CBSNews.com. Well, when his boss pointed out that wasn't even his title, Declan had to issue a correction about his own job title. But wait, there's more. Now, I make some mistakes sometimes, but I have always been pretty good about knowing my own job title -- when in doubt, look at your own business cards, Declan.

Now, what was Declan writing about? The breaking news. Well, here it is from the horse's, hmm, mouth.

The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent. A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

A few minor adjustments might help everyone understand this a bit.

First, the memo in question was from 9 months ago.

And, this is the better part. Nowhere in the memo does the figure of $1,761 show up. No where. As Brad Johnson notes over at the Wonk Room, this is "pure twaddle." I like that, twaddle. So much nicer than "total and complete bullshit."

Pete Altman explains what is actually in the nine-month-old discarded memo. It's worth reading.

But okay, so maybe Declan is having a bad day, imagining job titles and figures in reports, but surely a news organization like CBS just might, maybe, perhaps ask...

What the heck is the Competitive Enterprise Institute?

Well, let's put it this way. It's founder is Fred Smith, who famously said that global warming might be "a good thing because of all the cool new crops we could grow."

Yep, that and the hot baths at the North Pole.

Who would give money to a group like this?

No one but ExxonMobil, American Petroleum Institute, you get the picture.

So, let's summarize:

A CBS News correspondent who can't get his own title right makes up a number in a memo given to him by a group funded by ExxonMobil and somewhere at CBS News right now, someone is wondering where the viewers are going.

For more about this, check out www.fightcleanenergysmears.org

And yes, I work on NRDC's online efforts, and I have a title, online consultant. I checked.

Follow James Boyce on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jamesboyce

Comments

[mat3]

So where's the original memo and why was it discarded?

[HillBillyRealist]

$1,700 per family is not so farfetched. Energy is a major component of everything we buy, service or product. If the average family income was $60,000 in 2006 that would be increase of 2.8%. Since it is estimated by the US DOE that electric rates could go up 30-100% and since electricity is embedded in everything this estimate is not unreasonable.
The Census estimated that the family paid $2,432 in taxes so if one considered the increased cost as a surrogate for a tax, that increases their tax load to $4,100 or 6.8% of their income verses 4.0% in 2006. That would be, on a percentage basis, over a 50% increase in taxes per family.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/income_expenditures_poverty_wealth.html

[HillBillyRealist]

$1,700 per family is not so farfetched. Energy is a major component of everything we buy, service or product. If the average family income was $60,000 in 2006 that would be increase of 2.8%. Since it is estimated by the US DOE that electric rates could go up 30-100% and since electricity is embedded in everything this estimate is not unreasonable.
The Census estimated that the family paid 2432 in taxes so if one considered the increased cost as surrogate for a tax that increase their tax load to 4100 or 6.8% of their income verses 4.0% in 2006. That would be, on a percentage basis, over a 50% increase in taxes per family.

[RomeoMD25]

The global warming scam passed by Congress. Goldman Sachs is in the middle of it, as usual– a potential trillion dollar sure thing.

And Former Vice President Al Gore who will profit from the cap-and-trade plan through his company, Generation Investment Management,–
Gore is joined by three former Goldman Sachs heads in their carbon offsets business.

[paul m]

any coverage on the green peace action going on in the Tar Sands right now?????

[JScott]

Competitive Enterprise Institute.­.....c'mon that's a giveaway right there who's funding it.

[Policon]

So where is the report saying that the cost isn't 100 - 200 billion a year? Are we to believe that Congress is going to tax CO2 emissions and the cost in no way, shape or form, will be converted to the consumer?

[foxnewsfan]

dear online consultant, how much does the memo say cap and trade will cost a family a year? My old Casio says that if you divide the $200,000,000,000 cost per year by 170,000,000 families, you get $1761 cost per year per family. But you are right, the memo is 9 months old. The cost is now probably up to 300billion per year. I dont know who the Competitive Enterprise Institute is either so don't feel bad.

[johnsonc20]

That is a large figure per family based upon the speculation that the cost would be evenly shared by all families - a faulty assumption on its face. It is also the upper end figure from a Bush Administration Treasury Department that opposes the cap and trade system.

That being said, cap and trade is a horrendous boondoggle that will benefit Wall Street speculators as the next great derivative to bundle up and sell at inflated rates. It is a bubble, or at least a "bubble-ette," waiting to happen. Better to set caps that come down lower and lower each year and enforce them. "Trading" carbon lends itself to trickery and fraud and is needlessly expensive.

[Richard2]

This information was reportedly obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. It came from the Treasury Department. So does this information represent the opinion of the Treasury Department, or not? Is it your complaint that the information was released to the public, or that the CBS reporter didn't get all the details right?

The information appears to be the genuine opinion of the Treasury Department, but was not intended for public release. This was because of the possible impact this information will have on the prospects for Cap and Trade legislation making it through the Congress.

In this case an informed public will tend to oppose the legislation.

Is it your position that it is better to keep the public in the dark than having an informed public?

[James Boyce - Huffpost Blogger]

of course not, but it's 9 months old and no where in it does it says it will cost a family 1700 dollars a year, the "think tank" made that up and the reporter fell for it

[CelticMajic]

divide the $200,000,000,000 cost per year by 170,000,000 families