• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • EPA’s Economic Analysis of the Boxer-Kerry Cap and Trade Bill

    “Second verse same as the first, a little bit louder and a little bit worse.” This is the basic theme of the EPA’s analysis of the shrouded Boxer-Kerry Bill (S. 1733).

    Given just 12 days to analyze the Boxer-Kerry climate bill (that others were not allowed to review), the EPA relied on previous analysis and the similarities between Boxer-Kerry and previous climate bills, most notably Waxman-Markey (H.R. 2454). Comparing S. 1733 to H.R. 2454 they conclude (page 28):

    While there are some minor differences in the bills in several areas that will likely result in slightly higher costs for S. 1733, these differences are overshadowed by the fundamental similarities in approach, caps, offsets, and other critical design parameters that affect the costs.”

    Preliminary analysis by the Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis comes to the same basic conclusion: Though we disagree on the magnitudes, we agree that the Senate bill is very similar and a little worse than the House version.

    The numbers most likely to be repeated from the EPA analysis are the same misleading numbers repeated from the analysis of Waxman-Markey. However, before reviewing the analysis, one point needs to be made crystal clear—there is no green stimulus here.

    Even the most generous scenario in this EPA report shows that there will be costs forced on the economy—higher energy prices and lost income. For every year reported, household consumption drops compared to a world without Boxer-Kerry. This is a climate bill and, even according to the EPA, it will reduce economic activity. Spinning this as a job-creating, green stimulus bill is an act of fraud.

    What will be the real costs? The Heritage analysis finds aggregate GDP losses (adjusted for inflation to 2009) grow to $9.6 trillion—an average loss of about $400 billion per year. Note that Heritage only projects impacts for the first 24 years of the 40-year program. The full 40-year cost will obviously be much higher.

    The legislation pushes more than 1.8 million onto the unemployment rolls in 2012 and ultimately raises unemployment by over 2.7 million. This is net of any green jobs.

    Energy costs rise. Even after adjusting for the purchase of more expensive energy-saving appliances, even after consumers drive less and adjust their thermostats, family energy expenditure rises by nearly $900 dollars per year—a total of more than $21,000 for the 24 years analyzed. Again, these figures have already been adjusted for inflation.

    The EPA on the other hand reports results that amount to tens of billions of dollars per year. As with their analysis of Waxman-Markey, the EPA analyzed the economic impacts of several scenarios for Boxer-Kerry—from extremely unrealistic on one end to much more realist on the other. However, in the current report they present the economic cost of only one unrealistic scenario.

    This particular scenario depends on three extreme assumptions. First, nuclear power generation must nearly double in the first 25 years. This is the equivalent of about 100 additional nuclear power plants. In the past 30 years, not one new nuclear power plant has been licensed and Boxer-Kerry (like Waxman-Markey) makes little to no provision for eliminating the legal and political barriers to the nuclear renaissance necessary for this EPA analysis.

    Second, the EPA assumes that technology for capturing and storing the carbon dioxide emitted from coal-fired power plants will be fully commercialized in the next 15 years. Pilot projects are still on the drawing boards. Further, even after the extraordinary technological and economic hurdles have been cleared, the political and environmental obstacles to storing tens or hundreds of millions of gallons of liquid CO2 each day must be overcome.

    Third, the EPA assumes nearly two billion tons of CO2 can be emitted beyond the caps set by the legislation because we will pay others to cut their CO2 emissions. Known as offsets, some of these cuts are to be made in the U.S., while many more are expected to be provided abroad. The results from current offset programs elsewhere are so unsatisfactory, that Boxer-Kerry devotes 90 pages to specifying the structure for establishing the stultifying regulations for offset certification, verification and trading. The theoretical availability as outlined in the earlier part of the bill is a long way from the actual availability of the offsets necessary for the EPA’s analysis. On page 20 of their report, the EPA makes clear that offsets are not a done deal:

    “There are many institutional design issues, including the measurement, monitoring, reporting and verification requirements, surrounding estimates of offset availability. These issues must be addressed to ensure that the offset reductions are truly incremental, and represent real reductions.”

    On the same page, the EPA acknowledges the great uncertainty of offsets and their projected economic impacts:

    Additionally, the cost and availability of offsets, particularly international offsets, is one of the greatest uncertainties in forecasting the cost of climate legislation.”

    Gambling trillions of dollars in family income and millions of jobs on any of these strained assumptions would be a great risk. Relying on all three seems unconscionable.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    11 Responses to EPA’s Economic Analysis of the Boxer-Kerry Cap and Trade Bill

    1. Freedom of Speech TX says:

      Why are we willing to wreck our economy and the lives of millions?

      There is no national emergency such as the Manhattan Project in WWII, where we were in a race to attain atomic power before the Germans and Japanese got there first. They would have used it…

      Does "anyone" honestly believe that Kerry and family would gamble their vast fortune so irresponsiby? Of course not.

      Does "anyone" believe that this "marketing plan" would even get through the first presentation in the "real world"? It would get you fired for stupidity.

      When it is not YOUR money it is easy to gamble with others'.

      Does being a left wing fanatic trump common sense?

      Apparently so.

    2. Pingback: EPA’s Economic Analysis of the Boxer-Kerry Cap and Trade Bill « HOME – Other Right Links and Posts

    3. Jason Ponvelle says:

      I am not for this new cap and trade bill. This will force energy companies out of the U.S. We still need energy and it doesn't matter how much it's taxed. This is plain and simple just that a new tax bill. It's like this socialist health care where a few pay, but everyone enjoys. B.S……..

    4. Pingback: Today’s Calamity: Senate Concerns on Cap and Trade Cannot Be Fixed | Conservative Principles Now

    5. Pingback: Understanding Boxer’s Procedural Gambit « SprayKing.ca

    6. redpens, PA says:

      The EPA is drunk with power mistakenly given to it by the Supreme Court(see EPA vs. Massachusetts). The EPA needs to be de-funded immediately. That alone would save many millions in taxpayer dollars annually.

    7. Pingback: Understanding Boxer’s Procedural Gambit | Conservative Principles Now

    8. Pingback: Morning Bell: Cap And Trade’s Mandates And Subsidies No Way To Go Nuclear | Conservative Principles Now

    9. Pingback: Troubling Trends - Telic Thoughts

    10. Nicolai Alatzas says:

      I just read the following information on the Waxman-Markey thought I would share it to those who think energy should be a free market lol.

      "The House Energy and Commerce Committee looks poised to vote on the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act later today. As this bill has developed, from an already compromised draft bill through massive compromising to reach a bill submission to committee markups, it has reached the point as to whether it is more appropriately called the “Assuring Coal Energy Subsidies” Act.

      * 25 percent directly to fossil-fuel companies and energy-intensive industries. (13% for energy-intensive trade-exposed industries, 5% for the fantasy of clean-coal, 5 percent for coal-plant operators, and 2 percent for oil refineries). This is direct subsidy for the continued use and burning of polluting energy.

      * 52 percent indirect subsidies to the burning of fossil fuels through buffering commercial and residential customers from any cost increases due to carbon pricing (30 percent), providing funds to natural gas companies (6%), low-income rebates due to rising energy costs (15%), home-heating oil rebates (1 percent).

      * 13 percent to energy efficiency and renewable energy including clean tech R&D (1.5%), deployment (5.5%), electric vehicles (1%), state and local energy efficiency (4%), and subsidizing international clean energy (1%)

      * Other including reducing tropical deforestration (5 percent), international adaptation (1%), deficit reduction (2%), green jobs and transition training/assistance (.5%), domestic adaptation (2%))" Source http://getenergysmartnow.com/2009/05/21/a-coal-su

    11. Pingback: Some Truth in Copenhagen | Conservative Principles Now

    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.

    ×