The Drudge Report (9/16/09) is featuring this headline (in scary red type):
Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year…
The link goes to a CBSNews.com post, which declares:
A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration’s estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.
Well,there’s one problem: $1,700 is the upper estimate. The second, far more importantproblem: This was an analysis based on a plan that called for auctioning all ofthe carbon-burning permits; the bill that passed the House auctions just 15 percent of the permits, meaning that this document (FOIAed by the corporate-friendlyCompetitive Enterprise Institute) bears almost no relationship to reality.
The CBS report has an “update” at the bottom of the piece, from the kind of people CBS didn’t bother to quote (preferring the likes of the Heritage Foundation and CEI, staunch critics of cap-and-trade):
Update 9/16/2009: The Environmental Defense Fund has responded to the documents’ release with a statement saying, in part:
“Even if a 100 percent auction was a live legislative proposal, which it’s not, that math ignores the redistribution of revenue back to consumers. It only looks at one side of the balance sheet. It would only be true if you think the Administration was going to pile all the cash on the White House lawn and set it on fire.
“The bill passed by the House sends the value of pollution permits to consumers, and it contains robust cost-containment provisions. Every credible and independent economic analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (such as those done by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the Energy Information Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency) says the costs will be small and affordable — and that the U.S. economy will grow with a cap on carbon.”
That is kind of like saying “IGNORE THE PRECEDING REPORT.”
The Politico had a brief story on this as well by Ben Smith–not nearly as bad as CBS‘s– that also included a late correction:
CORRECTION: The League of Conservation Voters’ Navin Nayak points out to me that the documents are a bit less than meets the eye: They refer to a version of the legislation profoundly different than the one that passed. Specifically, the original White House plan had 100 percent of emissions permits being distributed by auction; the plan that passed has just 15 percent. “Can you say ‘irrelevant analysis’? It would be like pricing the healthcare bills currently in front of Congress based on a single-payer system,” he writes.
He also notes that the revenue comes directly from polluters, not taxpayers, and continues (and I’m quoting him at length because my original post was sloppy):
“Why not use the CBO analysis of the house bill? Republicans seem more than happy to use CBO when it helps their case (i.e. Against some of the health care bills). But CBO said that ACES would only cost a postage stamp a day per household…in 2020.”
So the scary-sounding statistic is nonsense.Nonetheless, one can expect to hear this “It will cost you $1,700!” factoid all the time.
Peter, the above may be true, but does that make cap and trade a good thing?
When it will let polluters escape their responsibilities by funding questionable “green” projects here and abroad, instead of cleaning up their industries?
When it will create another casino for Wall Street risk makers?
Am I missing something here, or are you, as Sam Husseini asks of the Demorats re health care, “carrying water” for this joke of a climate bill?
I think it’s a legitimate question – I guess your reply or your silence will indicate your opinion, won’t it?
Here’s someone who knows a shitpot full more about than I do:
The Injustice of Carbon Offsets
Offset Schemes Require the Poorest to be Twice Burdened
by Vandana Shiva
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/18-9
Has FAIR even read the Cap & Trade legislation or is FAIR just reading government, think-tank and media propaganda hand outs. That’s called regurgitation is it not.
For the carbon tax (or for “Cap & Trade”) to be fair, the proceeds collected must be fully refunded to the people on a per-capita basis. This was the suggestion James Hansen made to the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee: Carbon Tax & 100% Dividend vs. Tax & Trade.
This possibility is both fair and politically feasible. It is also mostly ignored by the media. Maybe FAIR could turn up the heat on this idea.
Cap & Trade seems to be a shell game created to obscure truth and confuse people. Has it reduced the amount of carbon dumped in the air or is it a gimmick designed to avoid responsibility? Would a Carbon Tax work any better? We need to reduce the amount of carbon dumped in the air now (no foot-dragging, no blame-storming, no delays, no issue-framing). Clean coal? Nothing I do stinks.
While I agree with the comments on the cap and trade itself, the real point of the article is the “reporting” of cap and trade. If you want to see the defeat of any bill with teeth in it just let those talking heads disseminate their usual blather about the “cost to the taxpayer”. As long as the corporatocracy can keep people afraid they can do as they wish to our climate, our wages and so many of the things that make life worth living.
I agree that carbon offsets are just a scheme to trade paper but continue to pollute. What it should be is a straight carbon tax and let the proceeds go to non-hydrocarbon technology. Funny that the reich wingers are calling “Cap and Trade” a tax on them! And when you find that the so-called “liberal press” as said by the obvious extremists you see that they are reich wing as well—CMSM. But just not as fanatical in their words. They are much more subtle many times by omission which is what FAAIR does to expose.
Recent report came out that about 1/2 of the money promised to other energy sources got to it. So that means the COGN got 1/2 more of the subsidies. Subsidies for them? Insane but really just criminal.
http://www.mediaghost.net/web-studio-v5-0-0-19-winall-cracked-blizzard