• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • More on That Leaked EPA Plan

    Liberals have been eerily silent about the EPA’s recently leaked plan to control America’s entire energy sector. But they did latch on to one sentence in the report. For example, Think Progress blares: Bush Hiding Truth: Global Warming Regulations Worth $2 Trillion Benefit.

    Jim Manzi exposes the EPA’s phony numbers at The Corner:

    If you click through the supplied link, you can read the first 150 pages of this EPA report, which, as a service to my readers, I did. (I’ve got to get a new gig.)

    You can find the $2 trillion estimate right there in a table on page 101. As you work your way through the analytical assumptions, however, you find that (i) this assumes a 3% discount rate, which is nice work if you can get it, and (ii) even more amusingly, counts the benefits attributable to the whole world, not just residents of the United States. At this discount rate the report estimates the total economic benefit of avoiding one ton of CO2 emissions to be $40. How much of this the U.S. portion? $1. So more than 95% of the “benefit” in this cost-benefit analysis accrues to people outside the U.S. who aren’t paying the freight.

    Why didn’t the State Department sponsor this, as it sounds like the most generous foreign aid program in history? The EPA wants us to raise the price of gas so that we can help people not yet born all over the world with a problem that might develop several decades from now.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    One Response to More on That Leaked EPA Plan

    1. Dave Kilpatrick, San says:

      Now that Bush, Gingrich, and McCain have bought the Fraudulent PC Research, the sky will indeed fall. It should envelope and ruin the United States before the mini ice age expected in about ten years (predicted by Sun activity). I am sorry to "bother you with facts" if your "ganglion is made up." In our current Sun cycle, we have received increasing radiation every year since the early 40s, slightly increasing average temperatures. As a scientist-engineer, I am appalled at the blind acceptance of four models that do not meet the basic test of reverse correlation with hundreds of years of valid historical data. One model predicts catastrophic Global Warming.

      However, assume that the arrogant ignorant will be allowed to make us responsible for worldwide green-house gas reduction. Human activity generates about 10% of atmospheric carbon dioxide. (US share is about 2.5%.) After committing economic suicide will the US trillions slow warming at all? We desperately need our best Climatologists and Solar Scientists to objectively determine the probabilities. Politicians get into Actual Reality! We need facts, not Gore's Poster Bear (picture in August, south of Greenland).

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×