Passage of climate-change bill a landmark achievement
Yesterday’s House passage of cap-and-trade legislation designed to confront climate change is a landmark achievement, the first tangible step taken by the country that emits more greenhouse gas per capita than anyone in the world.
The bill itself still faces a tough test in the Senate. Passage is far from assured, and without similar actions by other major emitting countries, it won’t mean much. But it does finally demonstrate to the rest of the world that the United States is prepared to do its part, which puts the pressure on them to follow suit.
The bill itself, the product of a thousand political compromises, also isn’t perfect. But it also isn’t what its hysterical opponents claim it is. As Bryan Walsh acknowledges in Time:
… critics have vastly overstated the likely cost. In fact, they’re all but lying. During the House debate, Republican whip Eric Cantor, using numbers from an American Petroleum Institute study, said that the bill would eventually cost more than $3,000 per family per year — but those numbers assume that billions of tons worth of inexpensive carbon offsets won’t be available under the bill, which would significantly inflate the overall cost. That’s not going to happen. A more reliable study from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office forecast that the bill would cost the average U.S. household $175 in higher energy costs annually by 2020 — and other studies estimate that the energy-efficiency provisions in the bill might even save Americans money over time.
When opponents are forced to lie so blatantly — in this case exaggerating the likely cost 17 times over — they don’t have much of an honest argument.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
201 comments Add your comment
ByteMe
June 27th, 2009
9:49 am
The deniers don’t have an honest argument anyway. Call their bluff. Ask them to put the money in escrow now for what it’ll take to clean up the mess if we do nothing and they turn out to be wrong. We’ll give it back in 50 years when we find out which side was right.
Seek and ye shall Find
June 27th, 2009
9:53 am
Well, of course the Republicans do not have any honest arguments. If they did, then they would have to admit that they are just so wrong on so many levels. Honestly. They’re liars.
Bud Wiser
June 27th, 2009
9:54 am
Obowo’s slobbering masses are finally going to get some ‘change’:
1. If they even bother to do so already, they certainly won’t be able to pay their electric bills anymore…maybe they can take hope like Peggy Joseph.
2. The Chinese are going to own more of us, and our ’stuff’.
3. Those same Chinese will continue to belch pollution into the atmosphere, along with most all of Europe, making Dope & Chains look even more ignorant than he i now.
4. The cost of everything will climb exponentially – food, fuel, (insert everything else here), etc., etc.
All of this will come to pass unless the Senate gets a grip on reality (unlikely), and the drooling legions will cheer.
Stupidity reigns under Obowo, and you morons still support this catastrophe?
Idiots.
All of you, idiots.
DB, Gwinnettian
June 27th, 2009
10:01 am
Anyone else enjoying Bud’s meltdown as much as I am?
DB, Gwinnettian
June 27th, 2009
10:04 am
Thing is, this is (like, say, the Employee Free Choice Act) a fairly moderate approach to changing direction. Naturally the right-loons are going to exaggerate its consequences.
@@
June 27th, 2009
10:05 am
But it does finally demonstrate to the rest of the world that the United States is prepared to do its part, which puts the pressure on them to follow suit.
So it’s now O.K. to be leaders in policing the world’s environment?
You’ll have a hard time convincing me that economically up-and-coming countries are gonna remove the safety valve on their little 2 qt. pressure cookers.
A transfer of wealth from the northern hemisphere to the southern.
Seek and ye shall Find
June 27th, 2009
10:07 am
“…climb exponentially…”
Well, I’m sure it’s idiotic of me to claim so but that sure beats the heck out of a boring linear or quadratic climb especially if it is accompanied by a logarithmic decline. They’re much more fun than those silly old hyperbolic sine slides. Got hyperbole there, bub, I mean, Bud.
Seek and ye shall Find
June 27th, 2009
10:08 am
Yes, it is OK to be a leader as long as you don’t have to do it at gunpoint.
TW
June 27th, 2009
10:14 am
Real government acts proactively. The right hates that, as it hinders the opportunity to make money off disaster. And when your party puts dollars in front of citizens, any government that prioritizes quality of life is a problem.
Nice to see the concept of ‘leadership’ working its way back into Washington. Pandering has sooooooooooo worn out its welcome
I Report (-: You Whine )-:
June 27th, 2009
10:19 am
Aahh, yes, like I said, I am a mind reader-
Yesterday’s House passage of cap-and-trade legislation designed to confront climate change is a landmark achievement, the first tangible step taken by the country that emits more greenhouse gas per capita than anyone in the world.
Do I know these goony liberals or what?
I Report (-: You Whine )-:
June 27th, 2009
8:39 am
House OKs global warming bill-Urinal
Now the dimocrats have their screaming headline, all of their mouthbreathing moonbats think the planet is “saved,” Mission Accomplished!
I rule.
clyde
June 27th, 2009
10:21 am
It’s going to cost me more for energy in 2010 than it does in 2009.That is a fact that everyone seems to agree on.We’re only arguing about the rate of increase.The costing more fact is making a lot of people happy and I just can’t figure out why.What is it you think you’re going to get for your money?What ,exactly,do you think this cost increase is going to do to improve your life?
Kamchak
June 27th, 2009
10:22 am
“So it’s now O.K. to be leaders in policing the world’s environment?”
If we were going after foreign corporations abroad then maybe the phrase “policing the world’s environment” would be applicable. Showing the world that we are finally serious about taking responsibility in our role in emitting greenhouse gasses is what this is about.
I Report (-: You Whine )-:
June 27th, 2009
10:22 am
And the most important part-
Now it can quietly crash and burn in the Senate, hahahahahahaha.
The only reason it made it past the “moderates” in the House was the implicit guarantee that it would fail in the Senate and they wouldn’t have to face the wrath of their voters who don’t want the BS.
You libs have accomplished Nothing.
bwa
Dusty
June 27th, 2009
10:26 am
You mean to tell me that China and India are not making more pollution than the USA? That China and India are going to raise the cost of energy for their citizens BECAUSE the USA is over taxing its citizens? If Obama does nothing else, he must give China and India a big laugh. I think he should be a Jay Leno substitute.
Maybe Bookman will draw up a little map like he did recently which will show USA in a perfectly clear climate spot while the rest of the world is covered with air pollution. With his knowledge of science, I would not be surprised.
Oh well, Obama will probably figure out how to stop the tide from coming in. That wiil ONLY cost another trillion dollars. POCKET CHANGE!!! “All the world’s a stage and our president is playing the fool!”
Toe tappin' Andy
June 27th, 2009
10:32 am
Too bad it was done in the middle of the night, and nobody really knows what’s in it… it seems that it barely passed so even the “moderates” were iffy about it.
Cap n trade, pollution credits, it’s all BS. Our problems need to be addressed, impending lack of fresh water and oil is going to do us in long before pollution will…
I Report (-: You Whine )-:
June 27th, 2009
10:33 am
I ask, if this is such a “wonderful” thing-
Why were the farmers bribed?
Why were the minorities bought out?
Why did the auto industry and their union buddies get a pass?
Why were some members of the House, who face reelection in 2010, able to swap their yes votes for the “nos” in the safe House seats?
And as if you needed anymore proof, look at state run bookman all orgasmic over it.
Toe tappin' Andy
June 27th, 2009
10:36 am
“Real government acts proactively. The right hates that,”
That’s a lie and you know it, “conservative” govts seek to be proactive on voting issues, voting “issues” that don’t exist, but they COULD… and they’re proactive on gay marriage, they work thier little tails off to make sure that won’t happen, nevermind that the “sanctity of marriage” doesn’t really apply to the heterosexuals of “conservative” persuasion…
Toe tappin' for Andy
June 27th, 2009
10:36 am
I think they sure turn off those floodlights in the Chattahoochee National Preserve parking lot, you know, “save some energy.”
Plus, it keeps my he/she friends from saying ew when they see me.
ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
RW-(the original)
June 27th, 2009
10:37 am
We’re not exactly leading the world anywhere when you use the qualifier that we already emit “more than our share” since that just gives anyone else cover to do nothing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back in March it seemed pretty shocking that John Conyers said it was high time to investigate ACORN and it’s dubious ties to the Obama campaign and donor list. Flash forward and we see that Conyer’s wife was being prosecuted on various federal charges. This week she copped a guilty plea and stands convicted of conspiracy to commit bribery. Just after she took the plea Conyer’s decided to drop the investigation into ACORN.
How much time, out of the possible five years, does anyone think Mrs. C will serve? Chicago politics, Detroit style.
Wes
June 27th, 2009
10:37 am
Jay,
Why are we passing a law taxing emissions instead of actually reducing them by replacing coal plants with nukes?
Toe tappin' Andy
June 27th, 2009
10:39 am
Methinks Andy doth know too much about what goes on in the wilds of the Chattahootchee National Preserve after dark… probably knows the trail around the lake at Piedmont park pretty well too….
ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Seek and ye shall Find
June 27th, 2009
10:40 am
Well, the Iraq war ONLY cost a trillion in cash not to mention thousands of American lives and several hundred thousand innocent Iraqi lives and we didn’t even make a dent in terrorism or get cheaper oil or less pollution or anything for THAT investment. Change is good.
Toe tappin' Andy
June 27th, 2009
10:41 am
That’s alright RW (the original), W done set the bar low there by commuting Libby’s sentence for treason… Obama can just commute any sentence Mrs. C gets…
ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Toe tappin' Andy
June 27th, 2009
10:42 am
Seek,
All that was off the books until this year, so it don’t count…
Seek and ye shall Find
June 27th, 2009
10:45 am
Thanks, Toe Tapper. I forgot to apply GOP logic — lie about it because that’s how the truth is created.
Homerphobe
June 27th, 2009
10:51 am
Hey Toe tappin’-
Reverend Phelps would like to know if you’d mind coming down to the Westboro Baptist Church and speaking before the congregation?
He said you sound like a real champion.
You the man, Toe tappin’!
getalife
June 27th, 2009
10:53 am
Our corrupt Senate will killl it but it was 8 gop yes votes that made the difference.
Big oil finally lost one.
Seek and ye shall Find
June 27th, 2009
10:56 am
I think $4+ per gallon gas finally opened a few eyes. The GOP puppets of big oil are finding it harder to pass off their crap as truth any longer. Drill that, Noot.
Gawingnut
June 27th, 2009
10:57 am
“More greenhouse gas per capita than anywhere else in the world.”
Gee, if we could just get Jay, Al & Queen Nancy to shut up for a week, we wouldn’t need this worthless legislation.
Hurry up, mid-term elections. This madness MUST end.
TnGelding
June 27th, 2009
10:59 am
Well, it’s just too darn complicated and would be a nightmare to implement.
C O N S E R V E !
getalife
June 27th, 2009
11:03 am
After the Senate kills it and the economy recovers, 4 bucks a gallon gas and giving billions to people who blow up our buildings and troops will come back.
Sane Americans think that is insane but cons like it .
More proof that conservatism is a mental disorder,
booger
June 27th, 2009
11:13 am
I would love to comment on “cap-and-trade”, but I just don’t know enough about it. Just like the health care proposals and almost everything else passed in the last five months they have all been crammed through under the banner of CRISIS and the public really has been given very little usable information.
$175 or $3300. Who knows. Congress doesn’t even know exactly how its going to work. How will health care work? What will it cost? How will we pay for it? Who knows? Certainly not Obama. I watched some of his show and tell about health care reform, and he said nothing. No matter what he was asked, their was not one definative answer.
I doubt anyone here, including Jay can really describe “cap-and-trade” in anything other than the broadest terms, yet all are eager to sign up to a program because it is “cool” to be proactive.
We have become a strange and scary country.
arnold
June 27th, 2009
11:14 am
I remember during the presidential campaign it kept being stated Obama has no experience and can’t lead. Well, guess what. I think we are seeing a true leader. I love it.
Seek and ye shall Find
June 27th, 2009
11:18 am
When is Cantor going to quit spouting that lie about the cost of cap n trade. I mean, people are calling him out and letting the world know that he is a liar and he just keeps on spouting the lie. These Republicans and their blatant acts of desperation. So pitiful. Honestly.
ByteMe
June 27th, 2009
11:21 am
Booger wants certainty. Sorry, boog, but we haven’t had certainty in life in … well, since forever.
We will always seem strange and scary if all we ever do is wait for the people who want to study something to death. Cap-and-trade has been around a long time. From the EPA site: Examples of successful cap and trade programs include the nationwide Acid Rain Program and the regional NOx Budget Trading Program in the Northeast.
Scooter
June 27th, 2009
11:25 am
How do you folks here know Canter is lying and Walsh is not? I’m confused!
DoggoneGA
June 27th, 2009
11:33 am
“I mean, people are calling him out and letting the world know that he is a liar and he just keeps on spouting the lie”
It’s the Cons mantra: never let the truth get in the way of a good talking point
RW-(the original)
June 27th, 2009
11:34 am
Why are you people calling President Obama a liar?
DoggoneGA
June 27th, 2009
11:35 am
“How do you folks here know Canter is lying and Walsh is not? I’m confused!”
You know, it helps if you actually READ WHAT JAY POSTS: “… critics have vastly overstated the likely cost. In fact, they’re all but lying. During the House debate, Republican whip Eric Cantor, using numbers from an American Petroleum Institute study, said that the bill would eventually cost more than $3,000 per family per year — but those numbers assume that billions of tons worth of inexpensive carbon offsets won’t be available under the bill, which would significantly inflate the overall cost”
Dusty
June 27th, 2009
11:37 am
Yes, Arnold, we got a leader! Unfortunately, under Obama’s leadership we will soon be the largest bankrupt nation in the world.
I could do without THAT!
md
June 27th, 2009
11:39 am
You sheeple are too funny.
What exactly is the difference between $4 a gallon gas and that same gas under an inflated dollar?
Do you people actually think inflation and higher taxes are the recipe for a recovering economy?
How many of you actually think even more manufacturing will not go offshore? I can tell you as a fact that many are already in the process of doing just that as we have been doing the negotiations.
Why does gov’t feel they must cram this down our throats? How about incentives for producing green jobs, etc. and ween us off in a truly capitalistic way, instead of dictatorship.
Look at the numbers folks, all the numbers. What they report is bits and pieces, the bits they want you to know. Look beyond that and get a clue that every business in this country will be effected and guess what, you and I will pay for their increases along with our own. Inflation will take off like a rocket if the Senate is as assinine as the House.
Scooter
June 27th, 2009
11:44 am
Doggone @ 11:35,
I read it twice! So, howdoes Jay know who is lying? Thanks again for the explanation of C & T yesterday.
DoggoneGA
June 27th, 2009
11:46 am
“I read it twice! So, howdoes Jay know who is lying?”
Read it again then: “those numbers assume that billions of tons worth of inexpensive carbon offsets won’t be available under the bill, which would significantly inflate the overall cost” – Cantor is using number that DO NOT INCLUDE the carbon offsets, therefore he is lying about the potential cost.
“Thanks again for the explanation of C & T yesterday.”
You’re welcome.
md
June 27th, 2009
11:48 am
” A more reliable study from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office forecast that the bill would cost the average U.S. household $175 in higher energy costs annually”
Read that carefully folks. $175 per household. Now apply that to businesses. You know they consume much more than any one household. Now apply that increase to their expenses and walla, you have an increase in cost of product sold which will be an increase in cost of product which will be higher cost to you and me.
So how misleading is that $175 they want to to see.
Dollar here, dollar there and you folks don’t even care.
godless heathen
June 27th, 2009
11:48 am
Quote: “It won’t mean much.”
But it will cost us a ton, maybe even destroy the economy totally. Absurd!
DoggoneGA
June 27th, 2009
11:49 am
“What they report is bits and pieces, the bits they want you to know. Look beyond that and get a clue that every business in this country will be effected and guess what, you and I will pay for their increases along with our own. Inflation will take off like a rocket if the Senate is as assinine as the House.”
And haven’t you just been guilty of exactly the same thing? You want us to take your word for it that “Inflation will take off like a rocket” but you haven’t provided ANY numbers, ANY analysis, ANY evidence that proves your point. That’s WORSE than reporting “bits and pieces” – it’s all “take my word for it” – and you haven’t even given us any reason WHY we should take your word over anyone else’s.
RW-(the original)
June 27th, 2009
11:49 am
Well we could always look at an analysis of the bill’s costs to see who’s lying. My apologies in advance for the lengthy excerpt.
What are those costs? According to the analysis we conducted at The Heritage Foundation, which is attached to my written statement, the higher energy costs kick in as soon as the bill’s provisions take effect in 2012. For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 annually over that span. Electricity costs go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035. The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000.
But direct energy costs are only part of the consumer impact. Nearly everything goes up, since higher energy costs raise production costs. If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey, it works out to an average of $2,979 annually from 2012-2035 for a household of four. By 2035 alone, the total cost is over $4,600.
Beyond the cost impact on individuals and households, Waxman-Markey also affects employment, and especially employment in the manufacturing sector. We estimate job losses averaging 1,145,000 at any given time from 2012-2035. And note that those are net job losses, after the much-hyped green jobs are taken into account. Some of the lost jobs will be destroyed entirely, while others will be outsourced to nations like China and India that have repeatedly stated that they’ll never hamper their own economic growth with energy-cost boosting global warming measures like Waxman-Markey.
Since farming is energy intensive, that sector will be particularly hard-hit. Higher gasoline and diesel fuel costs, higher electricity costs, and higher natural gas-derived fertilizer costs all erode farm profits, which are expected to drop by 28 percent in 2012 and average 57 percent lower through 2035. As with American manufacturers, Waxman-Markey also puts American farmers at a global disadvantage, as other food-exporting nations would have no comparable energy-price raising measures in place.
Overall, Waxman-Markey reduces gross domestic product by an average of $393 billion annually between 2012 and 2035, and cumulatively by $9.4 trillion. In other words, the nation will be $9.4 trillion poorer with Waxman-Markey than without it.
Cue the wailing about the Heritage Foundation in 3…2…1….
Dusty
June 27th, 2009
11:51 am
I think this is the largest most nebulous plan I have ever seen. It is like department store advertisements. You get so many “carbon credit” discounts for this and that and it won’t raise your total one bit (after ten years). You will also get a rebate when the total is over a trillion dollars. They want us to accept the “fire sale”, the one that is going to burn UP every energy bill in the country.
And somebody VOTED FOR this thing? I think we have become the “funny farm” of the world.
DoggoneGA
June 27th, 2009
11:53 am
“Dollar here, dollar there and you folks don’t even care”
Certainly we care. Here’s something we also aren’t being told: the cost of energy is going to go UP regardless of what we do. If we do nothing then, as a non-renewable resource, the cost of oil will rise due to increasing demand and limited supplies.
So we have a choice: do nothing and our energy costs will rise, or do what we can to reduce our dependence on a limited resource and pay the increase cost for THAT instead.
md
June 27th, 2009
11:54 am
“And haven’t you just been guilty of exactly the same thing? You want us to take your word for it that “Inflation will take off like a rocket” but you haven’t provided ANY numbers, ANY analysis, ANY evidence that proves your point. That’s WORSE than reporting “bits and pieces” – it’s all “take my word for it” – and you haven’t even given us any reason WHY we should take your word over anyone else’s.”
Economis 101.
Companies don’t give away products. As costs go up, prices go up. Simple economics.
And we pay.
Just like “corporate taxes”. There is no such thing.