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

Wed, 2009-04-29 11:00Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

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.

Comments

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.

 

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

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

[x]
A U.S. District Court judge ruled on June 27 that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service both wrongly approved expansion of the West Elk coal mine in Somerset, Colo., because they failed to take into account the economic impacts greenhouse gas emissions from the mining would have.
 
The federal agencies said it was impossible to quantify such impacts, but the court pointed out a tool is...
read more