The cost of reducing the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions and creating a clean energy economy could come to as little 22 cents a day for American households, according to top Obama administration officials. The comments came as Secretary of Energy Steven Chu and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson testified in support of federal climate change legislation before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on Tuesday. Last month, the House of Representatives voted to pass The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, or “ACES”. Now it is the Senate’s turn to come its own version of the bill.
“Opponents of this effort claim the nation cannot afford to act at this time. I disagree, and so do the Environmental Protection Agency and the Congressional Budget Office,” Chu testified. “These organizations estimate that meeting the greenhouse gas targets in the House bill can be achieved at an annual cost between 22 cents and 48 cents per day per household in 2020. That’s about the price of a postage stamp per day.”
“I do not mean to say that we can get something for nothing,” Jackson stated. “But according to the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the net cost to the average American household in 2020 would be less than 50 cents a day.”
Other administration officials testifying at the hearing, “Moving America Toward a Clean Energy Economy and Reducing Global Warming Pollution: Legislative Tools”, included Secretary of Agriculture Thomas Vilsack and Secretary of the Interior Kenneth Salazar. They urged members of the committee to view federal climate legislation as an opportunity to create new green jobs and make America a leader in the global clean energy economy.
This article was contributed by The Green Jobs Report
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 17
We have entered a global cooling cycle; however the cleaning up of the environment needs to be done.
It will take another twenty years for folks to understand that we are in a cooling cycle now tho.
Richard is this cooling cycle just something you know about or is there fact based scientific data to back this up.
Yes I guess as many others don't seem to know and yes.
I won't bore you with the details, as you can check it all out and also learn by using Google
That's called evading a straight answer Richard.
but you won't believe anything that I say as you are brainwashed. So I suggest that you check it out yourself
This site may be too much for you but I'll pass it on anyway
http://personal.eunet.fi/pp/tilmari/tilmari3.htm
Under the Cap and Trade Legislation the expense is over $1200 per year. Also, if it isn't already clear, this administration already has a history of low-balling estimates. Unemployment wasn't going to go above 8.5% now we are looking at it hitting 10-11%. Every single number they have thrown out there has been seriously off.
Poliwonk USA,
Do you have a source for that $1200 per year cost? Is that supposed to be per household?
I see a lot of these higher numbers being flung around, but most of them seem to come from conservative think tanks who aren't exactly know for their objectivity. The administration's estimates are based on numbers produced by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO is nonpartisan, not a part of the administration, and works to provide Congress with cost estimates and other relevant information.
Poliwonk"s facts just pop out of his head or come from some oil industry funded conservation "don't-think tank" otherwise known as the feeder of lies to Fox News.
These so called think tanks don't really give a rat's patootie if the earth chokes on it's own offal as long as the corporate masters make a profit.
Nice article Dave. We can't let these lying S.O.B.s win this one.
Gullible idiots
Washington watch , Cost per average family $12433.74
From the Heratige foundation: My article
"Their allowance cost numbers don't add up. They say the allowance price will be $28. Since there are 5.056 billion tons of CO2 equivalent in the cap that year, that implies a $141 billion gross cost. They list 91.4 (see table one). In the CBO�s June 5 analysis of Waxman-Markey, they projected allowance revenues of $119.7 billion, 129.7 billion, $136 billion, $145.6 billion, and $152.9 billion for the years 2015 to 2019. It's hard to believe that the next number in that series would be $91.4 billion."
"� Most problematic is their complete omission of economic damage from restricting energy use. Footnote three on page four reads, "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap. The reduction in GDP would also include indirect general equilibrium effects, such as changes in the labor supply resulting from reductions in real wages and potential reductions in the productivity of capital and labor." That's a pretty big chunk of change to ignore. In The Heritage Foundation's analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation, the GDP hit in 2020 was $161 billion (2009 dollars). For a family of four, that is $1,870 that they ignore."
"Also telling, on page 5, the report says:
The distribution of the gross cost of complying with the policy would be quite different if the price level did not increase as a result of the cap - if, for example, the Federal Reserve adjusted monetary policy to prevent such an increase. In that case, the compliance costs would fall on workers and investors in the form of lower wages and profits.""
It seems that the CBO is presenting a best case scenario for the President to sell...If everything goes right it will only cost this much....but the reality is that nothing the government ever does goes right, it will cost the American public much much more!
BTW David,
How much will this bill reduce global warming?
Dan E. one glance at you icon and you lose all credibility.
Robert,
Your opinion is not important.
You can learn more about Skeptics their research and science at ICECAP