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.

In his latest campaign ad, candidate for VA-Gov Bob McDonnell used the familiar $1,761 clean energy tax lie in the most creative way I’ve seen yet. First, the ad says “Deeds supports tax policies that will cost families $7,800 over four years.” The first $1,000 is for a 20 cent per gallon gas tax. Aside from pointing out that taxing gasoline is a good idea, I’ll let this one go. The additional $6,800 McDonnell’s ad cites is the $1,761 figure (roughly) multiplied by four, the length of a term as Virginia’s governor.

Watch it:

At the 18-second mark, where the $6,800 figure is shown, it specifically cites CBSNews.com 9/15/09. This is the piece in which conservative blogger Declan McCullagh arrived at the $1,761 figure by way of faulty math. Brad Johnson documented the process by which this meme spread. It is starting to look like the Republican party’s messaging shop for energy policy is a single libertarian blogger making up numbers for the CBS website.

Here is the full script of the ad:

Creigh Deeds has unequivocally committed himself to higher taxes.Deeds supports tax policies that will cost families $7,800 over four years.

His billion-dollar gas tax increase would add twenty cents to a gallon of gas.

Cost to families: $1,000

Deeds called for Washington’s mandatory cap and trade energy tax.

Cost to families $6,800.

Killing up to 56,000 Virginia jobs.

Creigh Deeds ‘ tax policies will cost $7,800

For his part, Deeds is staying true to the stereotype of a Democrat who repeatedly insists on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Despite being handed proof that his opponent is against working women, homosexuals and contraceptives, Deeds has trailed in the polls throughout the race.  To make matters worse, Deeds is running a new ad saying he “says no to any new energy taxes from Washington”, which is drawing the ire of environmentalists.  There has been some confusion over Deeds’ stance on cap and trade legislation, and as a result, he is being hit from both sides on an issue the Virginia Governor has absolutely no say in.

Spokesman for Senator Murkowski loses temper with blogger, admits that major GOP talking point on costs of climate legislation has nothing to with legislation that is actually being considered.

On September 16th, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski joined a growing chorus of Republican politicians touting a flawed analysis of the costs associated with cap and trade legislation (see: Treasury Department, CBO, Media Matters, Politifact and Grist) by issuing this press release:

“It’s becoming apparent that the administration knew all along how much their cap and trade program would cost, yet they continue to claim it will cost no more than a postage stamp a day,” Murkowski said.

<snip>

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total cost would be between $100 billion and $200 billion a year. 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.

These statements are factually incorrect, and they are thoroughly debunked by the links above.

On Monday, I wrote about the eight Republican politicians (note: since then Rep. Pete Sessions joined the party) who had already begun parroting this false talking point. I followed up with many of these Republican politicians, requesting clarification on their factually incorrect statements. The most interesting response — by far — came by way of an series of increasingly heated emails between myself and Murkowski staffer Robert Dillon. Mr. Dillon is the Republican Communications Director for the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

The emails were followed by a brief phone conversation, in which Mr. Dillon made the following comments.

Read the rest of this entry »

The following exchange took place between EnviroKnow.com and Robert Dillon, Republican Communications Director for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, via email.

EnviroKnow:

As you probably know, Senator Murkowski sent a press release last week touting an analysis of legislation that was never considered by Congress.

I was wondering if you have a statement on this or a response:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/18/lamar-alexander/alexander-claims-cap-and-trade-will-cost-consumer-/

Please let me know.

Thank You

Robert Dillon:

Mr. Nelson:

You requested comment on Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s release on the potential cost of cap and trade legislation? Please call or provide a phone number and I will call you back.

Sincerely,

Robert Dillon

EnviroKnow:

I am not interested in speaking on the phone. I need something written so I can pass it along to my readers verbatim. I think they deserve an explanation. If you are able to provide a written statement justifying the Senator’s use of unquestionably false information, please do so as soon as possible. If you are unable to do so I will be forced to indicate as such in my piece. Legislation as complicated as cap and trade is difficult enough to get right when everyone participates in the debate in good faith. Intentionally misleading press releases from United States Senators — with the explicit purpose of confusing constituents — is not acceptable and will not stand.

I anticipate your prompt response.

Robert Dillon:

I’m not sure there’s benefit in talking to someone whose already made up his mind about a story without even talking to the other side. That’s not journalism. We can speak on the phone first to discuss your story and then I may provide you with something written. I have reservations about responding to anyone who repeatedly calls a sitting US senator a liar without even having the professional courtesy to call up and engage on an issue.

EnviroKnow:

I’m offering you the opportunity to dispute my accusation that the Senator’s press release was factually incorrect. You can take it or leave it. I understand if you are unable to provide a substantive response, given the fact that the press release was demonstrably false. It would behoove you to come up with some sort of explanation for the factually incorrect press release, or you may risk the appearance of a de facto admission of guilt by way of refusal to engage.

Again — it is up to you whether or not you provide me with a statement, but I think a refusal to even attempt to back up the clearly false claims made in the Senator’s press release will come across very poorly.

I’m looking forward to your response.

Robert Dillon:

I have no guarantee that if I provide you with a response that you won’t edit it or doctor it to prove your point, which is incorrect, by the way. Without such a guarantee I’m not going to consider you an accredited journalist. You can either make a phone call and have a civil conversation and get information for your story and thereby serve the interests of your readers – or you can choose to do otherwise. It’s your choice.

EnviroKnow:

Well, sir, I’ll gladly offer my personal guarantee that I won’t edit or doctor your statement. Frankly, as someone who has never edited a statement in such a manner and would never even consider doing so, I take offense at the implication. I just want a statement from someone on the Senator’s staff — since it is perfectly clear to the casual observer that the press release was factually incorrect.

If you are unable to dispute my claim, I will indicate as such. But as evidenced by my continuing to correspond with you on this, I would much rather have a statement I can publish.

How about this? I’ll publish a screenshot of the statement rather than copying/pasting the text. That is perfectly reasonable, no?

EnviroKnow:

Is this suitable for you? I truly just want to publish your statement — in full and unedited — so my readers can judge for themselves.

Please advise.

Robert Dillon:

If that’s true then we can have a conversation via phone ahead of time.

EnviroKnow:

I’ll call you shortly.

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.