Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

EPA evaluates the American Power Act

Both the Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency are a little weird when it comes to climate change. They score costs, but not benefits. There are good methodological reasons for this. But it's a bit like looking at food based only off its possibility of making you fat, not its ability to feed you. It's not totally wrong, but just as humans wouldn't be eating food if we had no need to eat, there'd be no effort to price carbon if we didn't need to avert climate change.

But either way, the EPA's estimate of the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act is out, and the conclusion is that the cost of the bill would be extremely modest -- and that's before you include any of the benefits. "Average household consumption is reduced, relative to the no-policy case, by 0.0-0.1% in 2015, by between 0.0-0.2% in 2020, by 0.2-0.5% in 2030, and by 0.9-1.1% in 2050," concludes the analysis. And remember, there's a lot of growth between now and then, so total consumption is still way up. Meanwhile, we might've headed off the worst of the climate-change scenarios, and though it's hard to say how much that's worth, it seems like it might be worth a lot. David Roberts has more.

By Ezra Klein  |  June 15, 2010; 6:13 PM ET
Categories:  Climate Change  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Alvin Greene
Next: Reconciliation

Comments

I appreciate the analogy, but I think flipping the case would work better. The benefits of energy, like food, provide nourishment and growth, but the analyses don't account for the results of too much of a good thing being... well... death. We're gorging ourselves on energy all the way around when we really need to be moderating before irreprable harm is done to our vital systems of survival.

Even on the national level, the comparisons carry out in this method.

Posted by: Jaycal | June 15, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

The problem is, this administration has lied about the cost of every bill it has passed. They lack credibility on cost issues, at this point.

Posted by: davideconnollyjr | June 15, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

The problem is, this administration has lied about the cost of every bill it has passed. They lack credibility on cost issues, at this point.

Posted by: davideconnollyjr | June 15, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

The problem is, this administration has lied about the cost of every bill it has passed. They lack credibility on cost issues, at this point.

Posted by: davideconnollyjr | June 15, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

But can you guarantee that Guam won't tip over?

It would almost be worth shutting the climate Chicken Littles up for a 1% whack off household consumption, but, of course, that 1% is inconsequential in the alarmist's grand scheme.

I mean, how much hot air has Klein spewed on climate change, and now it's down to a 1% whack phased in over forty years? Tell us another one.

Posted by: msoja | June 15, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

LOLOLOLOL ANOTHER TAXATION BILL LOLOLOLOL THAT THEY CAN BUNDLE UP THERE BACK DOOR EARMARKS WITH !!!!LOLOLOL WHO DO THEY THINK THERE FOOLING !!!

Posted by: yourmomscalling | June 15, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

The American Gas Tax for the benefit of global elitists, Carbon Traders, and third world dictators bill.

Posted by: ecocampaigner | June 16, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Ezra, I still haven't had anyone offer a plausible explanation for climate change that occurs through natural processes. If the Earth has been much warmer and much colder before modern humans inhabited the Earth, what could have possibly caused the warming and cooling if there were no human produced carbon emissions.

In other words, has it occurred to you that natural long-term processes cause climate change and the human contribution is rather small? Second, have you thought about the fact that the climate is so complicated with so many interconnected processes that we can’t possibly model it with any degree of accuracy? Third, if a climate bill is inexpensive what good can it possibly do?

Posted by: kingstu01 | June 16, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Corporate Media Does It’s Best To Keep You Uninformed
The mainstream media is running a 24 hour news cycle focusing purely on the BP oil spill, a disaster, as we have shown, that is being intentionally hyped in order to sell cap and trade legislation and moves to nationalize big business.
In the wake of this, big important news stories are being overlooked. Here are just some of the stories, in no particular order, that you should be hearing on the nightly news, but of course, are not.
1. Israeli nuclear submarines positioned close to Iran:
2. Iran war propaganda:
3. The continuing economic slide:
4. FCC ready to restrict the Internet:
5. Obama/Blagojevich story
6. UN small arms treaty
7. Mexicans riot in LA/Land given over to Mexico
8. Obama Plans To Sneak Through Carbon Tax By Stealth
9. Afghanistan Mineral Riches Story Is War Propaganda
10. Free Speech Gag Bill Moving in House

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ten-stories-in-the-news-that-the-bp-oil-spill-is-overshadowing.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veHhcxQjZ2w&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: PaulRevere4 | June 19, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company