CQ:

The Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday that the cap-and-trade climate change bill sponsored by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., would generate a $21 billion surplus over the period of 2010-19. The nonpartisan CBO also said that after 2019, the bill, S 1733, would continue to generate more money than it would spend.

Here is the Congressional Budget Office’s full analysis:

climate_s1733_cbo –

Here we go again. James Inhofe, the most prominent climate change denier in the United States Senate, has concocted a new and innovative strategy to thwart the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. To wit, he and his Republican colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee have worked up a plan to simply not show up for next week’s markup:

But Boxer cannot hold the markup unless at least two Republicans show up, and EPW ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.) signaled that he has unanimous support among the panel’s minority members to boycott the session until they get more data on the legislation from U.S. EPA and the Congressional Budget Office.

Inhofe said he will wait for Boxer to file an official notice of the markup — expected today — before responding with his own declaration of the GOP’s markup strategy.

“As soon as we find out what her announcement is and what she wants to do, we’ll have our response,” Inhofe told E&E last night. “We’ll have our unanimous expression ready.”

Sadly, this is a continuation of the GOP’s longstanding strategy of delaying clean energy legislation:

• As Chairman Markey shepherded his American Clean Energy and Security Act through the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Republicans employed multiple parliamentary tricks to — as Politico put it — “nitpick the bill into legislative oblivion.” Brian Beutler called these nefarious stall tactics, and noted that Democrats responded by hiring a speed reader.
• Last year during the debate over the Climate Security Act, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell demanded that the entire 491 page bill be read on the floor of the United States Senate. A strategy memo was leaked at the time detailing the Republican strategy for delaying the bill as much as humanly possible.

While this Republican obstructionism is not necessarily surprising, it is especially egregious this time. Here are a few things about this episode that struck me:

1. Despite the fact that Senator Inhofe has been working to orchestrate this obstruction for a week now, Republicans are pretending the effort is being led by the two moderate Republicans on the committee. Politico handled the stenography:

The boycott effort is being led by the two most moderate Republican members on the committee: Sens. George Voinovich of Ohio and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee.

This is absolutely not true. Voinovich and Alexander have both indicated a willingness to lend bipartisan support to the legislation. Their statements in support of Inhofe’s obstruction are an indication that they are showing deference to the ranking member on the committee, nothing more. Again, this thing has Inhofe written all over it.

2. Senator Inhofe, of course, will never support the bill regardless of any economic modeling the EPA does. He does not even believe that humans are responsible for climate change. In his opposition to health care legislation he was at least honest enough to say so up front, telling a town hall in August, “I don’t have to read it, or know what’s in it. I’m going to oppose it anyways.” The same is true of the Kerry-Boxer clean energy bill: Inhofe has no intention of learning anything about it or voting for it. His only intention is to gum up the works and delay delay delay.

3. As Senator Boxer has pointed out, Inhofe’s reason for concern here is absurd:

“This is the longest study there is,” she said, noting that it included a two-week review of the Senate proposal, as well as the findings from a five-week review that the agency took this spring to analyze H.R. 2454, the House-passed climate bill. Combined, Boxer said the two bills are 90 percent similar, leaving little reason to dive deeper before the markup. “We’re not going to waste taxpayer money because someone drew a line in the sand,” she said.

Senator Whitehouse called this exactly what it is, theatrics.

This is nothing more than a shameless attempt to obstruct and delay clean energy legislation. Both on the EPW Committee, and in the full Senate, the numbers are on the side of passage. Senator Inhofe knows this, so he is throwing one last hail-mary in an attempt to stall the process. I don’t expect better from him, but it is still pretty pathetic.

Update — David Roberts at Grist:

The danger here is not so much that Inhofe can block markup, but he can make the entire process so toxic that any hope of Republican support is lost—and the bill won’t pass without some Republican support.

So it’s classic Inhofe: a petty procedural ratf*ck designed to poison the waters and prevent and reasonable engagement with the issues at hand.

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 »

Wonk Room:

On June 19th, the Congressional Budget Office analyzed the ACES Act — legislation crafted by Congress, not by “czars” in the White House — and determined “that the net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion—or about $175 per household.” Yesterday, the CBO — a Congressional research arm independent of the “spooky” executive branch — released an updated analysis that lowered its previous cost projection to “$160 per household.” In other words:

The average household would spend 44 cents per day – less than a postage stamp.

The revised analysis also determined that the least well off Americans would receive a greater net benefit than its previous projections. “CBO estimates that households in the lowest income quintile in 2020 would see an average gain… [of] about $125” per household. By 2050, this net gain would increase to “$355 measured at 2010 income levels.”

09-17-Greenhouse-Gas –

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.

Wall Street Journal:

So much of the wailing and gnashing of teeth around the climate bill in Congress revolves around the costs of curbing greenhouse-gas emissions. What about the benefits?

That is, seemingly everybody—the Environmental Protection Agency, the Congressional Budget Office, the Energy Information Administration, not to mention private-sector lobbies—has tried to tally how much it will cost to nudge America toward cleaner energy and fewer greenhouse-gas emissions. None have sought to figure out what kind of benefits the bill could bring.

That got some folks thinking. “Climate change is arguably one of the most complex issues to face Congress in recent memory, and yet Congress is essentially conducting its deliberations after having reviewed barely half the data,” says a new brief out from NYU Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity, an outfit basically created to bring cost-benefit analysis back to the environmental arena.

The upshot? As flawed as it may be, the Waxman-Markey climate bill makes economic sense, offering benefits worth at least twice as much as it costs, if not more.

Other Side of the Coin: The Economic Benefits of Climate Legislation –

cbo_aces –

Greenwire has the details.

I mentioned CBO’s cost estimates yesterday. Co-Authors of the legislation, Reps Waxman and Markey, have now weighed in with a statement:

WASHINGTON (June 8, 2009) – Chairmen Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), co-authors of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act today said that a new analysis of the bill by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows the legislation is a fiscally-responsible clean energy plan.‪

“The Waxman-Markey bill will get our planet out of the red, while helping to put our budget back in black,” said Rep. Markey. “Waxman-Markey is a win-win for America’s economy and environment.”

“This is a fiscally responsible approach,” said Rep. Waxman. “We are ensuring that the bill is deficit neutral, while protecting consumers from increases in their utilities bill, particularly low income consumers who are the most vulnerable.”

‪CBO’s analysis states that Waxman-Markey will raise $846 billion over the next decade in revenues from the new carbon market established by the bill, while not adding to America’s federal budget deficit‪. Waxman-Markey dedicates the revenues to assist consumers with the transition to a clean energy economy and for other public purposes, including energy efficiency and clean energy research and deployment. At least 50 percent of the allowances will go back to consumers — with at least 35 percent going to protect against increases in electric, natural gas, home heating and propane bills; and another 15 percent going to assist low income consumers.‪

You can download the PDF here.

And here is the conclusion, via the CBO Director’s Blog:

CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that over the 2010-2019 period enacting this legislation would:

* Increase federal revenues by about $846 billion; and
* Increase direct spending by about $821 billion.

In total, those changes would reduce budget deficits (or increase future surpluses) by about $24 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

In addition, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2454 would increase discretionary spending by about $50 billion over the 2010-2019 period. Most of that funding would stem from spending auction proceeds from various funds established under this legislation.