brought to you by www.energyboom.com
 
“An imperative read for a successful future.”
~LEONARDO DICAPRIO  
 
Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science

Desmog Video

You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.


 



Surprise, Surprise! Industry-Funded Study Predicts Economic Doom From Obama Climate Proposal

A new study sponsored by energy-intensive industries claims that the Obama administration's plan to impose a cap-and-trade system to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would result in 1.9 million job losses and cost the average U.S. household $1,400 a year by 2020.


These industry estimates are wildly off the mark, of course.  The Environmental Protection Agency last week concluded that the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation being debated by the House Energy and Commerce Committee would cost the average household just $98 to $140 a year through 2050.

The Coalition for Affordable American Energy, which commissioned the study, was formed in June 2008 by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Wholesalers-Distributors, and 73 other industry trade associations. 

The group currently claims more than 180 associations as members, including dozens of local chapters of the Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. and such noteworthy partners as the International Association of Ice Cream Vendors and the Association for Hose and Accessories Distribution.  (The group has no website of its own, all of its online communications are hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which calls itself a "key player" in CAAE.)

The Coalition for Affordable American Energy last made headlines when the group’s leaders met with former President Bush in August 2008 to lobby for increased domestic oil and gas drilling both offshore and in environmentally sensitive areas of Alaska. "I agree with them," Bush said at the time.

The Coalition for Affordable American Energy is now working to update the report based on the Waxman-Markey bill, which – unlike Obama’s original proposal - allows for some carbon credits to be given away for free and includes the use of carbon offsets instead of actual emissions cuts.

As The Hill points out in their coverage of these studies, it’s “important to remember what the studies don’t predict: the economic ramifications of a warming planet.”

Nobody knows for sure what the costs of rising temperatures in the next few decades will be for American businesses and households.  But it’s definitely not chump change.

What's next?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
#704789
climate criminal. +1; Wed, 2009-04-29 20:00; How to 'prove' something that isn't supported by the evidence.

It's a standard deceit used by the dishonest, when setting-out to 'prove' a position that isn't supported by the evidence.


The conclusions are already decided in advance, any supporting 'evidence' is then sought, no matter how relevant; naturally, 'inconvenient truths' are disregarded, even when they completely negate and overwhelm the so-called 'evidence' chosen by the 'researchers'. Often evidence is just invented. In desperation references that do not support the conclusion are cited with quotes out of context - after all, who reads the references?


This technique has served the AGW denialists well, and it also worked for the tobacco industry funded liars.

 

#705156
rayallen. +1; Fri, 2009-05-22 16:01; esimates of job losses could be conservative

I read somewhere the independent think tanks, believe that Obama's cap and trade system will actually cost the average household $2500-$3200 per year by 2020, and result in 4,000,0000 job losses! Thats not going to work for me...Yell

Here is an interesting website on climate change and its effects, click here

Hope we remain vigilant on this isssue or else...........

Ray

auto insurance quotes

#705204
NathanRatner. +1; Mon, 2009-05-25 12:30; Not surprised in the least...

You'd think they'd at least try to sound credible with their positioning, but then that would be acting with intelligence.  Not likely, sadly.  Alaska Cruise Deals

About the climate cover-up

About the climate cover-up

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

Although all public relations professionals are bound by a duty to not knowingly mislead the public, some have executed comprehensive campaigns of misinformation on behalf of industry clients on issues ranging from tobacco and asbestos to seat belts.

Lately, these fringe players have turned their efforts to creating confusion about climate change. This PR campaign could not be accomplished without the compliance of media as well as the assent and participation of leaders in government and business.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

Like what you read here? Get our top five stories in your inbox every week. » here's a preview
Enter your email and subscribe now!



DeSmog Tip Jar

DeSmog Tip Jar

Flickr Photos

Flickr Photos
Hoggan, Robertson, HarcourtJames Hoggan - Black and WhiteClimate Cover-Up Book CoverRichard Littlemore

Member of the Progressive Bloggers Network

MEMBER OF THE PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS NETWORK

Progressive Bloggers