Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

How Much Will Cap-and-Trade Cost You?

Last week saw a couple of bad Congressional Budget Office results for health care. But it saw a good CBO result for cap-and-trade. Dave Camp, the ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, asked the CBO to take a look at the Waxman-Markey climate change bill. In particular, he wanted to know how much it would cost American families. The CBO happily complied. The answer? $165 for the average household. And if you're in the poorest fifth of the population, you'll actually get $40 back. Here's the table:


That number is for 2020. And it's pure cost. The CBO's analysis does not "encompass the potential benefits associated with any changes in the climate that would be avoided as a result of the legislation."

Furthermore, the bill will actually be cheaper for consumers in the years after that. In the early years, many of the carbon permits are simply given away. In the later years, those permits are sold, and the proceeds rebated to taxpayers. That's why the policy doesn't end up costing us much money. But in 2020, the year CBO examines, that process hasn't been completed: 17 percent of allowances will be sold and 83 percent given away. By 2035, about 70 percent of allowances would be sold, with only 30 percent given away.

By Ezra Klein  |  June 22, 2009; 7:08 AM ET
Categories:  Climate Change  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Tab Dump
Next: Public Wants Fewer Jobs, More Severe Recession


Sounds like a good deal.

Posted by: Castorp1 | June 22, 2009 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Is that the right link? I can't find the table Ezra reproduces here anywhere in the government revenue estimate he linked to.

Posted by: conn_carroll | June 22, 2009 10:59 AM | Report abuse

As per a leaked memo from the Obama administration, cap and trade would reduce household income by more than $7,000 each and every year.

Obama’s ACES Act (cap and trade), however, will cost us much, much more than $7,000 per household! It will cost many of us our businesses. It will cost many of us our jobs. It will cost all of us our freedoms and our future.

Cap and Trade “would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the U.S. economy—all without any scientific justification,” said famed climatologist Dr. S. Fred Singer. It would significantly increase taxes and the cost of energy, forcing many companies to close, thus increasing unemployment, poverty and dependence.

Cap and trade represents huge taxes and cost increases, which will hurt mostly the poor and the middle class. Cap and trade will give dictatorial powers to Obama and will further enrich his billionaire friends (Gore, Soros, Goldman Sachs, Obama’s Chicago Climate Exchange friends, GE, the United Nations, etc.) -- all at our expense and at the expense of our children and grandchildren.

Those brainwashed to the point of wanting to destroy the economy to "prevent global warming" are behaving like the most primitive human beings who were duped into believing that human sacrifices would ensure them good weather. Human beings don't have the power to control climate! And killing the economy will not help the environment. Poor countries can’t protect the environment. Just look at Haiti!

Posted by: AntonioSosa | June 22, 2009 11:13 AM | Report abuse

1. Waxman-Markey made Very Simple:

Electricity generation (coal/gas) and transport (automobiles) cause nearly 80% of fossil fuel emissions (EPA data) - a focus on them alone reaches first phase 2020 reductions without elaborate expensive cap and trade solutions.

All other industry is only brought on board in second phase reduction 2020 as judged needed there and then.
Win-win for America: energy changes (incl grid restructuring) to electricity and transport, benefit
Americans regardless of emission reductions

Cost to consumer is kept down by long term loan finance, fed/state guaranteed to keep down interest rates, slow payback in consumer electricity bills or car cost.

No extra volatile emission trading costs for a range of businesses, passed on to consumers.

Understanding cap and trade + why it is bad for America

2. RE The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) costing

The assumption is that all energy efficiency legislation is GOOD for consumers.

Inefficient products need to have special advantages or noone would want them.
The fact is that efficiency regulation on a product sacrifices performance, construction and price features, and does not necessarily give the savings suggested anyway.

onwards regarding efficiency regulation effect on buildings, lightbulbs, cars, dishwashers and other products

Posted by: Lighthouse99 | June 22, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company