Mitt Romney's Fuzzy Math on Clean Energy Legislation
Today former Governor Mitt Romney released a video--and a contribution plea--targeting the clean energy and climate legislation currently moving through Congress. Problem is, Romney does not seem to quite know what proposal he opposes, or the real figures on Congress' actual proposal.
In his campaign missive, Romney hones in on the supposed cost of a pollution reduction system--a number that has been repeated by renowned climate-denier Sen. Jim Inhofe, House Minority Leader John Boehner, and conservative commentators like Glenn Beck. The problem is, their numbers are completely fabricated.
Romney, and the other opponents of clean energy legislation, are now claiming it will cost $1,761 per household. This after claiming it will cost $3,100 in months past. An MIT professor who had his own work twisted into the $3,100 figure called the same fuzzy math that created this new number "wrong in so many ways, it's hard to begin." The Pulitzer-prize winning fact-checker site Politifact has called both of these manufactured numbers "False."
The reality is that Romney and other naysayers aren't even looking at the actual Congressional bills currently being considered. Or perhaps they just haven't read them.
If Romney had looked at the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill, or the analyses of the bill done by the Congressional Budget Office, the Environmental Protection Agency, or the Energy Information Administration, he'd see that we dedicate the majority of the bill towards consumer protection measures. That's why all three analyses found that the household costs would be about a postage stamp a day--and that's before you add in the thousands of dollars in savings per year from energy efficiency provisions in the bill, or the national and economic security benefits from reducing our dependence on oil. In fact, the CBO found that the poorest fifth of Americans would actually come out $40 ahead from the robust consumer protections and rebates in the bill.
Here's the scariest math of all: since President George W. Bush's era of climate inaction began in 2001, every single year has been one of the top ten hottest on record, according to NASA. And under the Republican-led Congress and the Bush administration, consumers' energy costs rose $1,100 more for energy from 2001-2007, according to a study by the Center for American Progress--and that's not including the exorbitant gas prices of 2008.
So the next time you hear Mitt Romney or other opponents of clean energy and climate legislation railing about the costs of action, you should multiply your suspicion by whatever number they are attempting to sell. Odds are, it is far from even-handed.
Follow Rep. Ed Markey on Twitter: www.twitter.com/markeymemo
H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 ...
Waxman-Markey - washingtonpost.com
Chairmen Waxman, Markey Release Discussion Draft of New Clean ...
The Waxman-Markey bill, with its cap-and-trade provisions, heads ...
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
This week, the doomsters were embarrassed to learn, once again, that the planet was not in grave peril. Antarctica, their greatest candidate for catastrophe, was not melting at an ever-faster rate, according to a report in Geophysical Research Letters, but at the slowest rate in 30 years. To add to their frustration, they couldn’t even lash out at the lead author, Marco Tedesco of the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Department of City College of New York — the doomsters had praised his previous reports showing high rates of Antarctic melt.
But We are still at war in Iraq for Oil, and Afghanistan for a gas pipeline, and we are still paying through through nose for oil, and supporting terrorists with it, and we are still polluting the air with Mercury, and uranium , and still breaking mountains into rubble piles and polluting the water table, etc....
3 cent rooftop solar and waste BioChar can supply all the energy and fuel needs of the world, cheaper, cleanly, safely and forever. see my profile for links and proof.
BTW: We are in a 100 thousand year climate pattern of 10k year warm periods between 90k year ice ages. And you think that that this years data is important.
Rep. Markey quotes $1100 per year increase in consumer energy prices, but I think it's way higher (or "wicked more" in Mass-speak). Using an average family's use and historical energy prices for Mass.:
Electricity was 10.53¢ per kWh in 2000, rising to 16.11¢ in 2008.
* 10,800 kWh = $603 a year increase
Heating oil was $1.31 per gallon in 2000, rising to $3.21 in 2008.
* 800 gallons = $1520 a year increase
Gasoline was $1.22 per gallon in 2000, rising to $2.89 end of 2008.
* 1108 gallons = $1847 a year increase
[Car #1 = 15,200 miles a year, Car #2 = 7400 miles a year, 20.2 mpg]
That's about $4000 a year, THE COST OF DOING NOTHING. Now add in all the indirect price hikes we all absorbed due to these increased energy costs . . .
Would anyone hazard a guess as to how much the "business as usual" model is costing the average American family every year in increased energy costs? I ran the numbers for Massachusetts, using energy cost histories from the DOE/EIA website and the numbers are staggering.
The numbers being floated by the GOP are doubly deceiving because they assume the baseline is not moving. There are a host of economic, national security, and human/environmental health reasons to move away from carbon-intensive, non-renewable energy sources.
But we'd better move quickly.
The lower costs of a "postage stamp a day" was based on the EPA estimate for the first ten years of cap & trade. However, the EPA estimate was based on the majority of revenues from sales of carbon permits going to the government and then back to the citizens. The current C&P bill gives away 85% of the permits with no compensation back to the govt. or the people. EPA also factored in a cost of the benefits due to reduced pollution - a nebulous number at best. EPA also assumed that a large portion of the carbon based power generation would be replaced by doubling nuclear power generation. The proposed reductions in carbon emissions are only 3% by 2020, resulting in very low cost over the first ten years. It is not until 2035 (20%) and 2050 (80%) that the significant reductions (and associated cost increases) kick in, resulting in the major increase in utility costs not occurring until 2050. The increase in utility costs to individuals can be played out to make it look like the bill won't cost very much or it will cost a fortune. It's just how you look at the numbers and the time frame you use to calculate them. Based on your analysis, it's just as much a lie to say the cost increases won't be more than a postage stamp a day.
The EPA estimate was based on the majority of revenues from sales of carbon permits going to the government and then back to the citizens. The current bill gives away 85% of the permits with no compensation back to the govt. or the people. EPA also factored in a cost of benefits for reduced pollution - a nebulous number at best. The proposed reductions in carbon emissions are only 3% by 2020, resulting in very low cost over the first ten years. It is not until 2035 (20%) and 2050 (80%) that the significant reductions kick in, resulting in the major increase in utility costs not until 2050. These numbers can be played out to make the bill look like it won't cost very much or it will cost a fortune. It's just how you look at the numbers.
You know, we had a scare a few years back with the price of utilities. The pres. urged everybody to conserve. We did. With the lowered consumption came a shortage of "guaranteed profit" to the utility companies. By missing their profit levels, they were allowed to raise their rates. The rates never came down when the crisis subsided and people went back to their wasteful ways. Sooooooo, ir's pointless as a money saving venture.
How about just taxing carbon production, instead of cap and trade?
Make the tax "revenue neutral," by feeding it back to consumers in higher EITC, lower taxes for the middle class, and a small one time bump in Social Security and Unemployment benefits.
Then it doesn't do anything but discourage CO2 production!
Bingo!
Tax Carbon 1$ per Ton.
Tax Carbon equivalent for Methane, Radiation, etc...
Don't reward Coal, nukes and Fracking Gas.
Push rooftop solar big time, and Waste BioFuels. See my profile.
The $1760 dollar figure is from the Treasury report that the current administration tried to suppress...its from YOUR side. It has nothing to any of the other figures, which by they way factored in far more than your postage stamp cost.
The best report I have seen says the bill will cost about 44 cents per household and that is before the BENEFITS are accounted for.
You mean, 44 cents per household per day? What report? What benefits?
would you happen to have source on that little gem?
I have no problem possibly paying a little more to clean up our environment. But more and more this discussion is as ambiguous as the reasons for waging war with Iraq. It's now no longer global warming it's global change. We aren't addressing or regulating anything in the way of pollution. We are only proposing a new derivatives market based on some dreamt up priveledge to pollute scheme. So many are already geared up to game this new system I see no point in pretending it will work.
Didn't the recent Crash teach you anything?"
The Markets are rumors causing panics, no place for pollution trading.
The existing carbon market recently crashed.
50b$ to coal what is moral hazard??>?
and that 50B$ would have build thin films solar factories capable of 100 even 1000 gigawats of solar per year for 3 cents per kwh
You keep changing the name, and avioding that fact that this is just the largest new derivative market ever.
And Nuke power leads to proliferation and then to global nuclear war, it's insane! it's costly it's deadly.
see my profile for proof and links.
Proof?
see profile?
Maybe postage stamps will soon be $1700.
NASA already fixed their error. Your climate numbers are a joke just like your estimates on the cap and trade costs are a joke. 1998, 1999 and 2006 are in the top 10. The rest fell out when NASA fixed its errors when it corrected that 1934 was the hottest year on record. NASA also said due to decreased sunspot activity we are in for an extended cooling period.
Not a nickel should be given to the government for cap and trade. It is a scam.
Cap and Trade IS a scam... and it's a scam created by conservatives.
Instead of acting like conservatives, we SHOULD simply tax carbon emmissions. Then, when companies lie about their pollution, they are guilty of tax evasion.
Let's do the inane Christian Children's Fund math for every tax we're faced with. That's a lot of stamps, cups of coffee, and six packs of premium ale we pay for every day. And this is giving the benefit of a massive doubt to the CBO which has a piss poor track record to say the least. But wait. The EPA backs up the claim. The EPA?
Come on people. The EPA doesn't protect our environment. They just get paid off by violators. They call these payments "fines". They would love nothing more than to have another revenue stream. Meanwhile they allow corporations to douse are produce in dozens of untested pesticides. They allow large scale polluters to continue poisoning our watersheds for a fraction of the cost that it would take to actually remedy the problem. I don't have near enough room for the entire list. But they're all for "pollution reduction"? Please.
I wouldn't mind paying and extra $150 a year for meaningful pollution controls (sorry, I don't budget in terms of stamps or cups of coffee per day- I'm atheist). But I have yet to see any indication that the legislation in question would have a measurable effect on climate change due to green house gas emissions. Anyone? Someone show me a qualified link please.
Thank you Congressman Markey for clearing this up for this misinformed.
so the republicans are saying something that isnt true. how is that news
"a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth"
glenn beck
information czar fox news
the view 5/20/09
A postage stamp a day
A postage stamp a day
A postage stamp a day
A postage stamp a day
A postage stamp a day
A postage stamp a day
Funny they never say what the cost of that stamp is....isn't it?
Just ask yourself one question. When has a government cost estimate on a new program ever come close to the actual cost after that program has been implemented? NEVER is correct.
When has a corporate cost estimate ever come close to the actual cost?
NEVER is correct.
You didn't answer the question. You deflected as usual. If a company misses its cost, it takes a hit and/or goes under. The government will just raise your taxes or print money. Big diff.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
