There are a lot of blind spots in the case against climate change legislation regularly made by deficit hawks like GOP Reps. Peter Roskam and John Shimkus.
For one, the cost to households of enacting a cap-and-trade system
won't be nearly as high as Republicans suggest. The Congressional
Budget Office estimates the average household would be asked to pay an additional $175 per year by 2020. A complex regression
run by FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver suggests that the average Illinois
family would dish out slightly moreĀ -- $192 per year -- than the
national rate (while low-income households would actually save $40
dollars per year). Those are significant extra expenses, but you'd be
hard pressed to find any rational person who considers this extra cost
an "assault on democracy and freedom."
Opponents also rarely consider what Rep. Mike Quigley calls "the cost of inaction." Demand will rise when non-renewable energy sources dry up. Combine that with the inevitable human and financial costs of environmental destruction, and taxpayers will fork over much more in the long run if the nation fails to make a strong investment in renewable energy and cap carbon emissions now.
Environment Illinois tried to quantify that impact in a report released today titled "The High Cost of Fossil Fuels." According to their data, which is based on current and projected spending, Illinois will spend $1.074 trillion between 2010 and 2030 on oil, coal, and other forms of fossil fuel. If our current consumption habits aren't altered, that amounts to a $1,624 increase per person in combined fossil fuel costs in the year 2030.
Of course, fossil fuel use leads to what Environment Illinois' Citizen Outreach Director called Ryan Rastegar "the untold damages of global warming, mountaintop mining, oil spills, and pollution." World Bank Chief Economist Sir Nichoals Stern, cited in the study, warns that a 5 to 6 degree Celsius increase over the next century could result in "a permanent loss of 5 to 11 percent of global GDP." The Waxman-Markey bill, on the other hand, will only slightly lower American GDP starting in 2050, according to an analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency.
There are indirect national security costs to our dependence on foreign oil as well, part of the reason Rep. Mark Kirk made a controversial decision to side with the Democratic leadership. "Opponents routinely neglect to consider the cost to our service men and women," said Dan Toobin, Illinois state director for VoteVets.org, at a press conference today. U.S. decisions overseas have always been connected to the need for energy, especially conflicts in the oil-rich Middle East. Already, the federal government has allocated $1 trillion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, money that Toobin argues could be used to treat wounded soldiers and invest in clean energy. "I'm not trying to be an alarmist," he added. "I just think we should consider [those costs] when we address energy problems."
Read the entire report here.







Comments
Rmoen (not verified) on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 12:32
Mr. Doster-
You speak of the 'cost of inaction'. Let me reframe the question and ask, "how do we measure the success of cap and trade legislation?"
America needs clean, cheap energy -- not clean, expensive energy. I am a Democrat who thinks Congress is overplaying its hand. I fear their cap and trade legislation will double our energy costs over the years -- even faster for gasoline. Plus, we're going to see a lot of other unintended consequences. At 1,500 pages the bill is just too complicated, with too many moving parts. Why? There were 770 lobbyists registered to lobby on the bill and their fingerprints are all over the it.
-- Robert Moen, www.energyplanUSA.com
Philosophe Forum on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 19:53
If John Shimkus (IL-19) and his ilk kept their paws off the bill, there would be no fears of unintended consequences. They are a significant part of the 770 lobbyists providing the complications. Clean coal is an oxymoron.
ALISON, MPA
Philosophe Forum
Philosophe Forum on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 20:38
Also for your reading enjoyment:
Mountain Top Removal
Kudos to Willinois
ALISON, MPA
Philosophe Forum
markg8 on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 20:59
Roskam and Shimkus are fiscal hawks? Who knew?
These kind of projections beyond 10 years are pure speculation and next to useless. Think of the technological innovations of the last 100 years. This legislation is the first step tha will spur advances that will make them pale in comparison. In the short run it's going to be hard enough to convince the Chinese and Indians to go along with what needs to be done. Without the US, the single biggest user of fossil fuels leading the way, it would be impossible. It's far from perfect, it's been watered down way too much but we must pass this bill. There is no more time to wait.
Will (not verified) on Sat, 07/04/2009 - 13:10
It's too bad I haven't seen any stories about subsidies to the coal industry in the state budget. Conservatives are never fiscally responsible when it comes to handing over taxpayer dollars to corporations.
ids (not verified) on Tue, 07/07/2009 - 19:19
Coal, like liquid coal that Obama once if not will again (who knows with him) favored, can be linked as energy security. That is why it was a relatively easy vote for Kirk, because Wax-Mar is pro-coal.
Post new comment
Progress Illinois' intention is to foster community and to maintain a comfortable and constructive blogging environment. While we encourage and appreciates different points of view, we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. All comments submitted will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
We will not publish comments that we consider:
Please leave a name or nickname when commenting, as it makes it easier for others to respond directly.