• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Waxman’s Lower Standards Do Not Reduce Costs to Consumers

    In an attempt to win over the public, manufacturers and garner more Congressional support, House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Henry Waxman reduced the short-term stringency of greenhouse gas emission cuts as well as reduced the impossible goals for a renewable portfolio standard.

    The concessions, as reported by CQPolitics and the New York Times Greenwire, include:

    • 17% carbon cuts by 2020 (instead of 20%), but later reductions do not change
    • Allowances
         o 35% of allowances to local electric distribution companies
         o Trade-intensive industries, including pulp, paper, cement and steel,
         also would get free credits — 15 percent starting in 2014 but phasing
         out by 2 percent per year.(per NYT)
         o “Some” allowances to auto industry for research on new technology
         o Additional allowances to refineries pending – between 1 and 5 percent
    • Renewable Portfolio Standard would drop to 15% by 2020, with another 5% from energy efficiency
         o A 3% “Swinging Door” would allow states to meet RPS with 12-18
         percent of renewables and the rest from efficiency
         o Expands biomass definition and includes hydro built back as far as 1992
         o Nuclear or CCS-coal plants would not count toward the baseline
    • In 2025 President could impose carbon tariffs

    In truth, these concessions should be read as redistributive policy that attempt to mask the economic costs of the bill. Unfortunately, even if government selects a few winners, it’s the consumer that still ends up on the losing side. The Heritage Foundation analysis of Waxman-Markey (before the concessions) raises energy prices by 55-90 percent. The higher energy prices push unemployment up by 844,000 jobs per year on average with peaks over 1.9 million. In aggregate, GDP drops by over $7 trillion. The next generation will inherit a federal debt pumped up by $33,000 per person. All of these costs accrue in the first 25 years of a 90-year program. A few near-term reductions will do little to change the economic damage.

    And if it’s even possible for the environmental benefits to be more negligible than what they already were, these concessions only make the environmental target harder to reach. Climatologist Chip Knappenberger found:

    “By the year 2050, the “clean” version reduces projected global temperatures by 0.044ºC (or ~3% less than the rise without the legislation), the “dirty” version gets you about half of that, or 0.022ºC (~1.5% less), and the “dirtier” version saves half of that again, or 0.011ºC (<1% less). By century’s end, you don’t do much better–the temperature reduction amounts to, respectively, 0.112ºC (0.20ºF), 0.046ºC (0.08ºF), and 0.013ºC (0.02ºF).”

    Policymakers nor the public should fall for a short-term softening of the bill because it will be the consumers who suffer in both the near and the long-term.

    For comment on the carbon tariff, go here.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to Waxman’s Lower Standards Do Not Reduce Costs to Consumers

    1. Spiritof76, New Hamp says:

      We have to put Nancy Pelosi under oath and release all the memos, notes and every bit of written record of that briefing to get to the bottom of who knew, what and what her position was in 2002. Nancy Pelosi is lying through her teeth.

      May be they can administer sodium penathol to Nancy Pelosi when she goes for botox treatment next time.

    2. Pingback: » Financial News Update - 05/14/09 NoisyRoom.net: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the face of tyranny is no virtue.” Barry Goldwater

    3. Metalchemist says:

      Henry Waxman is another minion hungry for taxpayers money.

      He is another example of the LIFETIME POLITICIANS in government that need to be PUT OUT TO PASTURE.

      American's need to vote for TERM LIMITS.

      I think that a limit of two (2) terms would be a good starting point.

      One term in office,

      and one term in PRISON.

      This should get the MESSAGE ACROSS, that you elected to political office WORK FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. NOT THE REVERSAL.



      (Who else) Thomas Jefferson.

    4. Pingback: PA Pundits - International

    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.