Now that the House Narrowly Passes Energy & Climate Change Bill the conservatives are going nuts with their doomsday objections. In this post, I want to respond to three of their typical objections.
First, there's the bill-in-isolation-does-nothing-to-mitigate-climate-change charge. Here's Chip Knappenberger:
Without a large reduction in the carbon dioxide emissions from both China and India—not just a commitment but an actual reduction—there will be nothing climatologically gained from any restrictions on U.S. emissions, regardless whether they come about from the Waxman-Markey bill (or other cap-and-trade proposals), from a direct carbon tax, or through some EPA regulations.
Yet these critics seem to consciously ignore the it's-only-fair-you-go-first argument, as captured by the Andrew Revin:
For the most part, developing countries, from China and other giants to those struggling with deep poverty and a profound lack of energy options, say any new actions on their part are predicated on two things:
- Much deeper cuts in gas emissions by industrialized countries that built their wealth largely by burning fossil fuels,
- That the world’s established powers pay for any costs borne by poorer nations as they adapt to climate change and shift away from business as usual on emissions.
Then they go further into hypocrisy land by criticizing, as a boon to foreign competitors, aspects of the bill specifically designed to create more of an international response. According to Nigel Purvis, the Waxman-Markey bill would
allocate $5 billion a year by 2020 for direct climate change assistance from the U.S. government to developing nations ($740 million for technology, $3.7 billion for tropical forest conservation, and $740 million for adaptation). In addition, the bill would mobilize an additional $3.5-$15 billion a year by 2020 from private companies for emissions mitigation in developing nations, depending on the cost and supply of international emission reductions compared to domestic action. Combined, U.S. international investments in climate change under Waxman-Markey would range from $8.5-20 billion a year in 2020 – less than is probably required but certainly a significant start.
You can't have it both ways guys: you can't say the bill won't help if just the US does it and then criticize the "foreign" parts of the bill. (Read why "tropical forest conservation is one of the most affordable and fastest ways to achieve large pollution reductions").
Finally, conservatives charge that it's too expensive. Here's Conor Clarke response:
There's a fair amount of scaremongering going on about the costs of cap and trade. I get off the Jim Manzi train when he says that Waxman-Markey will be "a terrible deal for American taxpayers" because "it is projected to impose annual costs of about $1,100 per household (a little less than 1% of total consumption) by 2050." (That's from the EPA estimate.) That $1,100 looks like a lot, but of course the country is projected be almost three times richer in 2050 than it is now. Average household consumption in 2050 will be $164,348.
Here's an easy way of visualizing the costs of Waxman-Markey. The chart below shows projected U.S. GDP with and without Waxman-Markey (drawn from the data annex of the EPA's big estimate). Projected U.S. GDP without the bill is in orange; it's sitting behind projected GDP with the bill, which is in grey. The visible orange stripe is the difference between the two scenarios:
Nate Silver goes further, and in an interesting analysis arrives at these state-by-state cost in 2020:
Keep this map in mind when the Senate starts debating the House bill--I bet it's going to be a good predictor of support & opposition among the Democrats.





Recent Comments