Political Hotsheet:

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to view global warming as an urgent problem. Fifty-two percent say it should be a high priority, compared with 22 percent of Republicans. Nearly 40 percent of Republicans say global warming is not a serious issue.

There is also a gender divide: Men are far more likely to say global warming is not serious (30 percent say so) than woman (16 percent).

Here are the results:

Dec09aglobalwarming –

This guy is dangerously out of touch:

Super nervous, very creepy, super crazy. This was only two weeks ago. Here is the first 42 seconds:

Cap and trade started out just like almost everything does, to have a good purpose. To save our environment. Unfortunately, by the time it was passed it ended up to be more of a hidden tax for all of us and only help the environment a minute amount. And this isn’t Doug Hoffman talking, this is the GAO, the Government Accounting Office that has analyzed this and said that every household in America this bill will cost them something like seventeen-hundred and sixty dollars per year… in increased energy costs and compliance costs.

Three mistakes/lies in 92 words. One mistake/lie every 31 words, topping the one flaw per 42 word ration in this USA Todaypiece piece by the Superfreakonomics authors.

1. The GAO is the Government Accountability Office, not the Government Accounting Office.  Not a huge deal but something you should probably know before running for Congress.

2. The takedown of the completely fabricated $1,761 clean energy bill lie is extremely well documented. It was made up by a libertarian CBS blogger on September 15. At least 20 Republican politicians have repeated it anyway.

3. And my personal favorite: the lie Hoffman is trying to tell here is supposedly based on this Treasury Department document, not a GAO document.

Could Doug Hoffman be any more confused about all of this?

Here are the real cost estimates on the clean energy legislation currently moving through Congress:

• The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost (PDF) per household at $160 per year.
• An EPA analysis (PDF) estimates the cost per household at $98-$140 per year.
• An EIA analysis (PDF) estimates the cost per household at $83 per year.

None of these analyses take into account the costs of inaction, which would be far greater.

I’ve written several times in the past few weeks about the $1,761 energy tax lie Republicans have latched onto to oppose clean energy legislation. For those who haven’t been following, here is how this went down:

STEP ONE: “News” generated by right-wing think tank.

STEP TWO: Right-wing print journalists write “breaking news” story.

STEP THREE: Promoted by Drudge, story repeated endlessly on right-wing blogs, Twitter, and talk radio.

STEP FOUR: Republican politicians, right-wing think tanks, and polluter front groups release statements of shock and outrage.

STEP FIVE: On Fox News, Glenn Beck calls President Obama a liar/socialist/Marxist/communist/fascist/racist.

Here is how I characterized the willingness of Republican politicians to latch onto this lie at the time:

Despite immediate and forceful pushback from the Treasury Department, the Congressional Budget Office and environmental groups, solid reporting by the Wonk Room and the Washington Post, and thorough debunkings by Media Matters and Politifact, several leading GOP elected officials have begun citing the highly misleading figure.

Since I wrote that a few weeks ago, several Republican politicians have continued repeating the lie.

Today, Representative Ed Markey pushed this story back to the forefront with a Huffington Post piece. After setting the record straight on Romney’s falsehood and explaining the urgency of clean energy legislation, Markey finishes strong:

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.

While this is a solid piece, and Representative Markey makes his case well, he barely mentions the other Republican politicians who have repeated this lie.  I understand the value of pegging this on a potential 2012 Presidential candidate, but there are over a dozen current elected officials in the Republican party who have repeated this lie as well.

Since I last updated the count a few weeks ago, eight additional Republican politicians and party organizations have repeated the lie, bringing the total to 20.

• Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) released a statement claiming that “The Obama administration’s own estimate found a cap-and-trade scheme could cost American families an extra $1,761 per year.”
• Rep. Cynthia Lummis’ Chief of Staff told a local Chamber of Commerce that Democrats’ cap-and-trade bill “could cost individual households an extra $1,761 a year.”
• The Oregon GOP sent a fundraising email claiming that Democrats in Congress “Passed a huge energy tax that adds an estimated $1,761 to every family’s yearly budget.”
• Joel Pollack, Republican candidate for Congrss in IL-9 told the Cook Country Republican party that “The House passed a cap-and-trade bill that will cost each family in America $1,761 per year.”
• Rep. Blaine Leutkemeyer issued a press release lamenting the “Majority’s obvious disregard for the plight of American families who would have to shell out at least $1,700 a year in additional taxes…” (h/t Fired Up Missouri)
• Rep. John Culberson blogged that “Treasury also estimates the cost per household would be $1,761 a year, while American families are struggling to make ends meet.”
• MN State Rep. Mike Beard blogged that “We are gaining some more perspective as to how much cap-and-trade proposals at the federal and state levels would cost the average Minnesota family: $1,761 and $575 per year, respectively.”

Finally, here is one I missed as this lie was just beginning to take hold:

• On September 16th, the National Republican Congressional Committee issued dozens of press releases with the headline “National Energy Tax Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year.”

Here is the full list of 20 Republican politicians and local party organizations who have parroted some version of this widely debunked $1,761 lie:

Read the rest of this entry »

I mentioned last week that both CBS and Politico were forced to issue corrections on pieces they published citing inflated cost-estimates of a version of climate legislation that was never considered by Congress.

Despite immediate and forceful pushback from the Treasury Department, the Congressional Budget Office and environmental groups, solid reporting by the Wonk Room and the Washington Post, and thorough debunkings by Media Matters and Politifact, several leading GOP elected officials have begun citing the highly misleading figure.

Brad Johnson has an important piece at Think Progress documenting the process conservatives used to disseminate this misleading talking point:

STEP ONE: “News” generated by right-wing think tank.

STEP TWO: Right-wing print journalists write “breaking news” story.

STEP THREE: Promoted by Drudge, story repeated endlessly on right-wing blogs, Twitter, and talk radio.

STEP FOUR: Republican politicians, right-wing think tanks, and polluter front groups release statements of shock and outrage.

STEP FIVE: On Fox News, Glenn Beck calls President Obama a liar/socialist/Marxist/communist/fascist/racist.

Reading Brad’s meticulous documentation of how this meme was disseminated, I realized that they are setting this up to be one of the major talking points in the fight against clean energy legislation in the months to come. From the looks of things, marching orders have already gone out. Eight Republican elected officials, several of whom are in leadership positions, have already begun parroting this talking point:

• Senator Lamar Alexander issued a press release saying “American families can’t afford a new $1,761 yearly energy tax.”
• Senator James Inhofe issued a press release claiming that “the President’s own economic team said his cap-and-trade proposal would cost each family $1,761 per year.”
• Senator Lisa Murkowski issued a press release stating that “At the upper end of the administration’s estimate, the cost per American household would be $1,761 a year, on top of what they already pay in taxes to the government.”
• 2008 also-ran Mitt Romney told the crowd at the conservative Value Voters Summit on Saturday that the clean energy legislation “would cost the average American family $1,761 a year, the equivalent to a 15% income tax hike.”
• Representative Roy Blunt tweeted: “CBS reports the Obama Admin privately concluded cap & trade could cost families $1,761 a year. Same as a 15% personal income tax increase.”
• Representative Fred Upton fired off a letter, which cites the $1700 figure, accusing the Treasury Department of censoring information in the FOIA release.
• House Minority Leader John Boehner said on PBS’ NewsHour: “It’s a cap-and-trade proposal that came through the House that we now find out from the Treasury Department would cost each American family over $1,700 per year.”
• House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence copied-and-pasted the wholly discredited CBS blog post where the $1,761 figure originated into an email to supporters.
• Update 9/21: Representative Pete Sessions writes “American households could pay an additional $1,761 a year in expenses.”
• Update 9/22: John Cornyn issued a press release saying “According to a the Department of Treasury’s analysis, new taxes would be between $100 and $200 billion each year, costing families up to 1,761 each year.” Unlike some of the others, Cornyn didn’t even try to hide his source. He linked directly to the conservative blogger who came up with the $1,761 figure. He attributes the figure to the Treasury Department — which is false.
• Update 9/22: According to user casinclair on Twitter, Sarah Palin repeated the lie at her speech in Hong Kong yesterday. I’m assuming this is paraphrased, and am trying to find a full transcript: “Cap and tax (trade) will cause unemployment. Say it will cost $1800 per Americans and cause no change.”
• Update 9/22: Republican Senate Candidate Scott Brown said yesterday: “They want a “yes” vote on cap and trade, even if it will raise energy costs on the average family in this country by $1,761 a year.”

These eight twelve Republican politicians either think you are too stupid or too lazy to do even the most cursory fact-checking research on their increasingly hysterical claims. Tellingly, four of the eight — Alexander, Inhofe, Boehner and Pence — were also heavily involved in promoting another intentionally misinterpreted study claiming the legislation would cost each household $3,100 per year.

These staunch advocates of the status quo are grasping at increasingly ludicrous straws in their attempts to make Americans afraid of meaningful reform. When your position is based on ignoring science to prop up polluting industries, you have little choice but to cite misleading statistics to make your point. The problem for opponents of clean energy reform is that when Americans know the truth about the full range of costs and benefits associated with the legislation, they overwhelmingly approve — even in districts that are generally considered conservative. As long as we don’t let manufactured lies dominate the debate, support will remain strong and we’ll pass legislation in the next few months.

Brad Johnson explains:

According to Declan McCullagh, a libertarian blogger who works for CBS Interactive, secret Obama administration documents reveal that the cost of clean energy cap-and-trade legislation would be $1,761 per household — despite official estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Energy Information Administration of about a postage stamp a day. Based on Treasury Department documents acquired by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), McCullagh claims 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“.

There are lots of other updates on this story in the Wonk Room piece. Please read the whole thing.

The CBS piece, which can be found here, was later updated with this statement from the Environmental Defense Fund:

Even if a 100 percent auction was a live legislative proposal, which it’s not, that math ignores the redistribution of revenue back to consumers. It only looks at one side of the balance sheet. It would only be true if you think the Administration was going to pile all the cash on the White House lawn and set it on fire.

The bill passed by the House sends the value of pollution permits to consumers, and it contains robust cost-containment provisions. Every credible and independent economic analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (such as those done by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the Energy Information Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency) says the costs will be small and affordable — and that the U.S. economy will grow with a cap on carbon.

Clean Energy Works responded to the highly flawed CBS piece with this document:

CBS Piece Response –

Politico’s Ben Smith was also forced to correct his misleading piece on this:

CORRECTION: The League of Conservation Voters’ Navin Nayak points out to me that the documents are a bit less than meets the eye: They refer to a version of the legislation profoundly different than the one that passed. Specifically, the original White House plan had 100% of emissions permits being distributed by auction; the plan that passed has just 15%. “Can you say ‘irrelevant analysis’? It would be like pricing the health care bills currently in front of Congress based on a single-payer system,” he writes.

Assistant Treasury Secretary Alan Krueger has now weighed in:

“The reporting on the Treasury analysis is flat out wrong. Treasury’s analysis is consistent with public analyses by the EIA, EPA, and CBO, and the reporting and blogging on this issue ignores the fact that the revenue raised from emission permits would be returned to consumers under both administration and legislative proposals. It is time for an honest debate about how to solve a long-term challenge and deliver comprehensive energy reform – not for misrepresentations of the facts.”

More excellent pushback on this from Media Matters, Bill Scher at Blog for Our Future and Pete Altman at NRDC.

Finally, here is the out-of-date FOIA document the original flawed reporting from CBS and Politico was based on:

FOIA-Cap-andTrade-2009-09-11 –

Update: Kate Sheppard at The Washington Independent catches Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) repeating this lie to the Washington Post.