CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE
June 22, 2009 – 1:51 p.m.
Climate Change Bill Would Cost Households $175 a Year: CBO
House legislation to address climate change would cost households an average of $175 a year in 2020, the Congressional Budget Office said in a June 19 report.
The bill, which could move to the House floor this summer, would limit emissions of greenhouse gases and direct companies to buy and sell pollution allowances in order to meet the cap.
The CBO report could undercut frequent Republican claims that the bill would cost households as much as $3,128 a year. However, GOP members argue the price of the legislation remains unacceptable.
“Their report projects an allowance price of $28, which means that either CBO has invented a time machine for visiting markets and jotting down prices in 2020, or they’re just guessing,” said Lisa Miller, spokeswoman for Energy and Commerce Committee ranking Republican Joe L. Barton of Texas.
The CBO found the gross annual cost of the bill in 2020 would be $110 billion, mostly from the purchase of allowances and the financing of special projects in the farm and forestry sectors. The price of an allowance in that year would be $28 per ton of emissions, the report projects.
Of the total cost, about 30 percent, or $28 billion, would be allocated back to households directly, the report said. To offset higher energy costs, the bill includes rebates to taxpayers, along with payments to electricity and gas companies to lower consumer costs.
About 50 percent of the total, or $47 billion, would be allocated to industry, which would benefit the public indirectly through increased returns on investments, the report said. Another 10 percent would go to the federal government and states, another net public benefit, according to the report; while 7 percent would go toward overseas programs, imposing a net cost.
Overall, the net economic cost would be $22 billion, which works out to $175 per household, the report said. The lowest income quintile would receive an average net benefit of $40; the highest cost would fall on the fourth quintile, which would pay $340 a year
Comments
Why are you Americans catching our European bureaucracy disease?! Cap and Trade has been a disaster here, whether you agree with emission reduction or not. 1. Waxman-Markey made Very Easy: --Deal with the Problem --Keep Life Simple --Work with -not against- Business and Consumers 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 equity and long term loan finance, the latter fed/state guaranteed to keep down interest rates, with slow payback giving little affected consumer electricity bills or car costs. No messing up of American business practice, planning, and expense, by emission trading. Understanding Cap and Trade + why it is bad for America, see http://ceolas.net/#cce5x 2. RE The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) costing you mention.... The assumption is that all energy efficiency legislation is GOOD for consumers. WRONG. 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. See http://ceolas.net/#cc2x onwards regarding efficiency regulation effect on buildings, lightbulbs, cars, dishwashers and other products Let us believe in a go-ahead positive unfettered America.
Now that the CBO is disagreeing with the republicans they are ready to say that CBO estimates are wrong. Those guys are ridiculous.
I don't know about you, but I'd be willing to pay $200 a year for a cleaner world. I'm just sayin'
It would be cheaper than my health insurance and would help prevent the catastrophic flooding of our coastal cities? So what are we waiting for, pass it already.
what's the cost of doing nothing?
The problem isn't the $175 a year, the problem is the complicated and convoluted subprime carbon market that comes with cap and trade. A revenue-neutral carbon tax is straightforward and transparent, incentivizes green R&D and returns the revenue to the people. It's a win for the environment and a win for the economy.
This is where the plan go 'RED'....not Green.. Materials are coming from all around the world, via ship, rr and plane - manufacturing is done in countries that are NOT responsible when it comes to following and keeping it Green, and then shipping back here...Gosh that seems like a lot of "ENERGY' wasted...plus hardly 'green'.... I hate hypocrisy
C02 is .038% of the atmosphere. Man creates about 3% of THAT. This bill promises to reduce ONLY the US contribution of C02 by 17% by 2020 while China's C02 production will rise enormously. Thus this bill- even if ot works as promised- will affect world atmosphere by .0009462%. The US produces about 20% of the world C02. Reducing that be 17% makes little difference while China's C02 far surpasses anything doen by the US. So this will be an economy-crippling bill while having virtually no effect on the atmosphere.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: