EPA Paints Rosy Picture of American Power Act
Washington, DC – This afternoon Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), along with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), released an economic analysis of the American Power Act (APA) – a piece of legislation designed to change consumer behavior by taxing 85 percent of the energy consumed in the United States in an attempt to reduce global temperatures and greenhouse gas emissions.
And while proponents of this legislation tout the “minimal costs” such a policy would have on household budgets, it’s important to note that the EPA has a history of systematically underestimating the costs of cap-and-trade legislation. Today’s analysis is no different.
Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research issued this statement on the economic analysis released today on the American Power Act:
“The American people overwhelming oppose an increase in the gas tax – yet, it’s included in this legislation. Cap-and-trade, which will cause electricity prices to “necessarily skyrocket,” has also been soundly rejected by the American people – yet, it is also included in this proposal. We can argue about how high the costs of this legislation will be, but no one denies that the consumer will end up with less money in their pockets after this legislation is signed into law.
“Bottom line: the more expensive it is to do business in this country, the less productive and competitive our economy will be. Mandating the use of expensive energy and artificially increasing the price of coal, oil and natural gas will only further harm our already struggling economy. It is clear that the American Power Act will do just that, so one has to ask: What are policymakers and Wall Street trying to accomplish with this legislation?”
Note: EPA’s analysis is not a cost-benefit analysis. According to EPA models, the global temperature savings of the Kerry-Lieberman bill is astoundingly small—0.043°C (0.077°F) by 2050 and 0.111°C (0.200°F) by 2100. In other words, by century’s end, reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 83% will only result in global temperatures being one-fifth of one degree Fahrenheit less than they would otherwise be. That is a scientifically meaningless reduction.
Tags: American Power Act, EPA, gas tax, greenhouse gas emissions, John Kerry, National Energy Tax
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 15, 2010
CONTACT:
Patrick Creighton: 202.621.2947
Laura Henderson: 202.621.2951
ShareThis
June 15th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Our President has declared that manmade CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are a dire threat to Earth’s ecosystems and human health. This declaration represents the culmination of 20 years of scientific research at a cost approaching $100 billion. The president has declared that action must be immediately taken to solve this problem.
The solution is both obvious and simple: stop burning fossil fuels. In order to do that, the government must generously fund R&D to find the affordable, full time alternative energy source that can replace fossil fuels.
Unfortunately for the Earth’s ecosystems and for all of mankind, the President hasn’t so much as proposed this, let alone declared it to be a national priority to do so. The President’s “solution” is to continue burning fossil fuels, but make consumers pay for them from “skyrocketing costs”. Indeed, as the government forces higher fossil fuel costs into the manufacturing and consumption process, the price of everything will rapidly rise. I wonder where all of this money will go? Don’t hold your breath that it will fund R&D to find a full time replacement for fossil fuels.
Just as unfortunately, the President supports continued reliance on fossil fuels so as to give a purpose for making and selling windmills, solar panels, and biofuels. These part time sources of energy cannot replace fossil fuels. They can only supplement fossil fuels.
The government’s solution to the problem of manmade climate change is NOT to stop emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. To do so requires elimination of fossil fuels. Ironically, elimination of manmade CO2 “pollution” now justifies proliferation of part time energy sources that rely on fossil fuels for their very existence.
Ironically, by the government’s actions, we see the solution for manmade climate change to be the preservation of fossil fuels usage to keep the market for part time wind, solar, and biofuels alive and well… and to keep carbon derivatives from becoming worthless. The government is creating a new “Green Industry” which, once firmly established, will be too big to fail.
The government never intended to eliminate the burning of fossil fuels. The claim that climate change is a threat to the environment and to humans seems to be just a lie, an excuse to get a trusting public to let the government take their money and redistribute it as it deems fit.